R v James Ian Longworth (No 3) [2015] NSWDC 401

R v James Ian Longworth (No 3) [2015] NSWDC 401

It was necessary to prohibit publication of exhibit A and specified still images in exhibit B to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice because publication could render the accused's mother unable to give evidence and would likely expose jurors to substantial public and private discussion about central evidence bearing on intent. The order also needed to extend throughout the Commonwealth because publication elsewhere could become available on the internet and defeat the order within New South Wales.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial / Application by News Media Organisations for Access to Trial Exhibits and Application for a Non Publication Order
Outcome
Non-publication order made in part and media access granted to other exhibits.
Legal Topics
['access to Trial Exhibits' 'cctv Footage' 'one Punch Offence' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'safety of a Person' 'jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'open Justice' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['access to Trial Exhibits' 'cctv Footage' 'one Punch Offence' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'safety of a Person' 'jury Trial']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Jury Trial / Application by News Media Organisations for Access to Trial Exhibits and Application for a Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether publication of CCTV footage and still images during the jury trial should be prohibited as necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.' "Whether a non-publication order was necessary to protect the safety of the accused's mother." 'Whether media organisations should be granted access to trial exhibits not covered by the non-publication order.' 'Whether the non-publication order should apply anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was necessary to prohibit publication of exhibit A and specified still images in exhibit B to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice because publication could render the accused's mother unable to give evidence and would likely expose jurors to substantial public and private discussion about central evidence bearing on intent. The order also needed to extend throughout the Commonwealth because publication elsewhere could become available on the internet and defeat the order within New South Wales.

Court Disposition

Non-publication order made in part and media access granted to other exhibits.

Orders

  • ['Non-publication order prohibiting the publication of exhibit A in these proceedings and prohibiting the publication of the following items in exhibit B: behind the first tab coloured yellow, photographs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28; and behind the second tab coloured orange, photographs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.'...