R v Martinez; R v Tortell (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1617

R v Martinez; R v Tortell (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1617

The Court was not persuaded that take-down orders were necessary under s.8 CSNO Act. The articles were historical, there were unresolved difficulties about notice, control of websites, enforcement, utility and effectiveness, and the proper administration of justice would be adequately protected by jurors being directed about their s.68C Jury Act 1977 obligations and by the media's contempt obligations once the trial commenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Application for Suppression, Non Publication and Take Down Orders / Pretrial Ruling Before Retrial
Outcome
Notice of Motion of the Accused Tortell is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['take Down Orders' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'retrial Publicity' 'juror Internet Searches' 'contempt of Court']
['criminal Procedure' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'jury Trial'] ['take Down Orders' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'retrial Publicity' 'juror Internet Searches' 'contempt of Court']

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 Application for Suppression, Non Publication and Take Down Orders / Pretrial Ruling Before Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether suppression, non-publication or take-down orders were necessary under s.8(1)(a) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice in the retrial.' 'Whether the proposed take-down orders would have sufficient utility and effectiveness.' 'Whether jury directions, s.68C Jury Act 1977 obligations and the law of contempt would adequately protect the administration of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that take-down orders were necessary under s.8 CSNO Act. The articles were historical, there were unresolved difficulties about notice, control of websites, enforcement, utility and effectiveness, and the proper administration of justice would be adequately protected by jurors being directed about their s.68C Jury Act 1977 obligations and by the media's contempt obligations once the trial commenced.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion of the Accused Tortell is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application made on behalf of Mr Tortell is refused.' 'The Notice of Motion is dismissed.']