R v Al Batat & Ors (No 27); NSW Commissioner of Police v Al Batat [2020] NSWSC 1399

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 27); NSW Commissioner of Police v Al Batat [2020] NSWSC 1399

The evidence and confidential material established that suppression and closure orders concerning Mr Rivers' evidence about names and nicknames connected with the telephone encryption business were necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, protect Mr Rivers' safety, and serve a public interest significantly outweighing open justice. The witness was initially to be told of the closed court and suppression order because otherwise his valid safety concerns might taint his evidence, but he was not later told that redacted names had been disclosed because doing so risked affecting his evidence after he had arguably lied or obfuscated about those names.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Procedural Ruling Concerning Evidence, Public Interest Immunity, Closure of Court and Suppression Orders / During Trial, Arising From Cross Examination of Informant Witness Leonard Rivers and Subsequent Application for Final Suppression Orders
Outcome
Interim suppression orders were revoked and final suppression, non-disclosure and court-closure orders were made.
Legal Topics
['informant Witness' 'closure of Court' 'witness Identity and Safety' 'disclosure of Redacted Material' 'administration of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'public Interest Immunity' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['informant Witness' 'closure of Court' 'witness Identity and Safety' 'disclosure of Redacted Material' 'administration of Justice']

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 Trial Procedural Ruling Concerning Evidence, Public Interest Immunity, Closure of Court and Suppression Orders / During Trial, Arising From Cross Examination of Informant Witness Leonard Rivers and Subsequent Application for Final Suppression Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cross-examination of Leonard Rivers required reconsideration of public interest immunity over redacted names and documents produced by the Commissioner.' 'Whether the Court should be closed and interim suppression orders made while Mr Rivers gave evidence about protected matters.' 'Whether Mr Rivers should be told that the Court had been closed and a suppression order made.' 'Whether Mr Rivers should later be told that names previously redacted had been disclosed to the parties.' 'Whether final suppression and non-publication orders were necessary under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence and confidential material established that suppression and closure orders concerning Mr Rivers' evidence about names and nicknames connected with the telephone encryption business were necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, protect Mr Rivers' safety, and serve a public interest significantly outweighing open justice. The witness was initially to be told of the closed court and suppression order because otherwise his valid safety concerns might taint his evidence, but he was not later told that redacted names had been disclosed because doing so risked affecting his evidence after he had arguably lied or obfuscated about those names.

Court Disposition

Interim suppression orders were revoked and final suppression, non-disclosure and court-closure orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), and upon the grounds set out in s 8(1)(a), (c) and (e), there is to be no disclosure beyond the Court of the names or nicknames given by Leonard Rivers of any person who owned, worked in or received goods or services from, or...