R v Dougas; R v Read; R v Linke; R v Casamento; R v Counihan; R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 534

R v Dougas; R v Read; R v Linke; R v Casamento; R v Counihan; R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 534

A non-publication order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the applicants' fair trials, as publicity linking individual accused to the corporation's guilty plea and detailed agreed facts would present a risk that potential jurors could improperly interpret the admissions as implicating the natural persons, a risk not adequately addressed by jury directions alone. The order is justified despite its impact on open justice, as prejudice prevention outweighs deterrence and disclosure interests until the conclusion of trial(s).

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Accused: Paul Peter Dougas; Accused: Mark Andrew Read; Accused: Geoffrey Kym Linke; Accused: Paul Joseph Casamento; Accused: Andrew William John Counihan; Accused: Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 001 024 095
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Suppression/non Publication Orders / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling Before Trial (order Granting Non Publication)
Outcome
Application granted; suppression and non-publication orders made
Legal Topics
Suppression and Non Publication Orders, Foreign Bribery, Fair Trial Rights, Open Justice
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Corporate Crime Suppression and Non Publication Orders Foreign Bribery Fair Trial Rights Open 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Paul Peter Dougas

Accused

Mark Andrew Read

Accused

Geoffrey Kym Linke

Accused

Paul Joseph Casamento

Accused

Andrew William John Counihan

Accused

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 001 024 095

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Suppression/non Publication Orders / Interlocutory/procedural Ruling Before Trial (order Granting Non Publication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-publication order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice
  2. 2 Balancing open justice and fair trial rights in relation to corporate pleas and statements of agreed facts

Ratio Decidendi

A non-publication order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the applicants' fair trials, as publicity linking individual accused to the corporation's guilty plea and detailed agreed facts would present a risk that potential jurors could improperly interpret the admissions as implicating the natural persons, a risk not adequately addressed by jury directions alone. The order is justified despite its impact on open justice, as prejudice prevention outweighs deterrence and disclosure interests until the conclusion of trial(s).

Court Disposition

Application granted; suppression and non-publication orders made

Orders

  • Prohibit publication of material containing any reference to guilty pleas by Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd, statement of agreed facts, sentence hearing, sentence imposed, sentencing remarks, and this application under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).
  • Exceptions permitting publication by specified entities for limited purposes (government authorities, auditors, advisers, Seller's Representatives, etc.) subject to provision of a copy of the orders.