R v Haile [2023] NSWSC 52

R v Haile [2023] NSWSC 52

The Court was not satisfied that the take down orders were necessary within s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). Binding authority required the Court to proceed on the basis that jurors will obey directions not to conduct research and will decide the case on the evidence, and the applicant did not establish that the jury in the retrial would fail to abide by such directions. The historical online material, even where it referred to the prior conviction, did not justify the exceptional step of take down orders, particularly in light of authority concerning jury directions, fair trial protections and the possible futility of such orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Application for Suppression and Non Publication Take Down Orders / Pre Trial Notice of Motion Dated 27 January 2023 Before a New Jury Trial Due to Commence on 13 February 2023
Outcome
Orders sought under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) refused.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'take Down Orders' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'fair Trial' 'jury Directions' 'juror Research']
['criminal Procedure' 'open Justice'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'take Down Orders' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'fair Trial' 'jury Directions' 'juror Research']

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 Proceedings; Application for Suppression and Non Publication Take Down Orders / Pre Trial Notice of Motion Dated 27 January 2023 Before a New Jury Trial Due to Commence on 13 February 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders requiring online articles referring to the accused's previous conviction to be taken down were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)." 'Whether the Court should proceed on the basis that jurors will obey directions not to conduct independent research despite the existence of online pre-trial publicity.' 'Whether the proposed take down orders would be effective or futile given the extent and nature of publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the take down orders were necessary within s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). Binding authority required the Court to proceed on the basis that jurors will obey directions not to conduct research and will decide the case on the evidence, and the applicant did not establish that the jury in the retrial would fail to abide by such directions. The historical online material, even where it referred to the prior conviction, did not justify the exceptional step of take down orders, particularly in light of authority concerning jury directions, fair trial protections and the possible futility of such orders.

Court Disposition

Orders sought under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) refused.

Orders

  • ['Orders sought under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) refused.']