R v Patterson (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 395

R v Patterson (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 395

Access to exhibits B and D was refused because they contained video or audio visual footage and, in the context of an ongoing jury trial, providing those exhibits was likely to prompt public discussion that could lead to communications with jurors and affect their ability to confine themselves to what was heard and seen in court. Refusal did not materially impinge on open justice because the media could still report what occurred in open court. Access to exhibits A and C was granted because they did not raise similar concerns, and access to the indictment was also appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Jury Trial; Media Applications for Access to Trial Exhibits / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Access granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
['murder Jury Trial' 'media Access to Trial Exhibits' 'open Justice' 'access to Court Files']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder Jury Trial' 'media Access to Trial Exhibits' 'open Justice' 'access to Court Files']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder Jury Trial; Media Applications for Access to Trial Exhibits / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether media applicants should be granted access to the indictment, opening statements and trial exhibits.' 'Whether access to audio visual or video exhibits during a jury trial should be refused because of the risk of prompting public discussion involving jurors.']

Ratio Decidendi

Access to exhibits B and D was refused because they contained video or audio visual footage and, in the context of an ongoing jury trial, providing those exhibits was likely to prompt public discussion that could lead to communications with jurors and affect their ability to confine themselves to what was heard and seen in court. Refusal did not materially impinge on open justice because the media could still report what occurred in open court. Access to exhibits A and C was granted because they did not raise similar concerns, and access to the indictment was also appropriate.

Court Disposition

Access granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • ['Access is granted to exhibit A and exhibit C.' 'Access to other exhibits is refused.']