R v Qaumi & Ors (No 67) [2016] NSWSC 1601

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 67) [2016] NSWSC 1601

With the conclusion of the joint trial, the primary justification for earlier non-publication orders—prevention of jury contamination for a related murder trial—was no longer present. The statutory test of necessity for continued suppression was not met. Accordingly, previous non-publication orders were revoked except in relation to the name of Mohammad Zarshoy and the identities of specified witnesses and an undercover police officer, which were suppressed to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice and ensure safety.

Parties
Intervenor: Nationwide News; Intervenor: Fairfax; Intervenor: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Farhad Qaumi; Accused: Mumtaz Qaumi; Accused: Jamil Qaumi; Accused: Mohammad Zarshoy; Accused: Mohammed Kalal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Suppression and Non Publication Orders
Outcome
Previous non-publication orders revoked; suppression and non-publication orders made in relation to names of certain accused and witnesses; media allowed access to most exhibits except selected confidential materials.
Legal Topics
Non Publication Orders, Suppression Orders, Open Justice, Protection of Witnesses, Media Access to Exhibits
Criminal Law Procedure Non Publication Orders Suppression Orders Open Justice Protection of Witnesses Media Access to Exhibits

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nationwide News

Intervenor

Fairfax

Intervenor

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Intervenor

Regina

Prosecution

Farhad Qaumi

Accused

Mumtaz Qaumi

Accused

Jamil Qaumi

Accused

Mohammad Zarshoy

Accused

Mohammed Kalal

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Suppression and Non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to revoke non-publication orders in light of trial developments
  2. 2 Whether suppression orders should be maintained regarding the names and identities of witnesses and accused
  3. 3 Whether the media should have access to exhibits

Ratio Decidendi

With the conclusion of the joint trial, the primary justification for earlier non-publication orders—prevention of jury contamination for a related murder trial—was no longer present. The statutory test of necessity for continued suppression was not met. Accordingly, previous non-publication orders were revoked except in relation to the name of Mohammad Zarshoy and the identities of specified witnesses and an undercover police officer, which were suppressed to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice and ensure safety.

Court Disposition

Previous non-publication orders revoked; suppression and non-publication orders made in relation to names of certain accused and witnesses; media allowed access to most exhibits except selected confidential materials.

Orders

  • All previous non-publication orders revoked.
  • No publication of the name of Mohammad Zarshoy until further order or occurrence of specified events.