R v White (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 65

R v White (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 65

The Court was not persuaded that the non-publication orders sought were required to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The risk of prejudice to any possible future trial was diminished by uncertainty about whether an appeal would be filed and succeed, uncertainty and likely delay in any future trial, the limited nature of publicity about the present proceedings compared with information already in the public domain, and the capacity of a trial judge to manage jury selection and directions. The need for open justice outweighed the risk of prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure; Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Application for Continuation of Existing Non Publication Orders and Further Non Publication Orders After Refusal of Application to Vacate Guilty Plea
Outcome
Application for continuation and further non-publication orders refused; existing non-publication orders lifted.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'jury Prejudice' 'appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)']
['criminal Procedure'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'jury Prejudice' 'appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)']

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 Procedure; Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Application for Continuation of Existing Non Publication Orders and Further Non Publication Orders After Refusal of Application to Vacate Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether existing non-publication orders should be continued and further non-publication orders made to prevent publication of the Court's reasons and media reporting of proceedings between 10 and 13 January 2022." 'Whether the risk of prejudice to a possible future jury trial outweighed the principle of open justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that the non-publication orders sought were required to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The risk of prejudice to any possible future trial was diminished by uncertainty about whether an appeal would be filed and succeed, uncertainty and likely delay in any future trial, the limited nature of publicity about the present proceedings compared with information already in the public domain, and the capacity of a trial judge to manage jury selection and directions. The need for open justice outweighed the risk of prejudice.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation and further non-publication orders refused; existing non-publication orders lifted.

Orders

  • ['Vacate the Non-Publication Order made on 10 January 2022.' "The proceedings may be reported, and the Court's judgment will be published to the Caselaw website without restriction."]