The Application of the Attorney General for New South Wales dated 4 April 2014 [2014] NSWCCA 251
Section 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) must be read down so as not to interfere with an accused's right to a fair trial, including the right to obtain by subpoena relevant documents; the legislature has not manifested a clear intention to abrogate this right and the section primarily protects the identity of reporters, not absolute confidentiality of report contents; even if s 29(1)(e) is construed as precluding production, it is not constitutionally invalid as it represents a reasonable legislative balance and does not undermine the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General) / Determination of Questions of Law After Acquittal Pursuant to S 108 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)
- Outcome
- Each of the three questions submitted by the Attorney General answered in the negative; trial judge did not err.
- Legal Topics
- ['right to Fair Trial' 'subpoena for Production of Documents' 'protection of Reporters' 'principle of Legality' 'institutional Integrity of Courts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General) / Determination of Questions of Law After Acquittal Pursuant to S 108 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether s 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) precludes court-ordered production of reports to accused in criminal trial' "Proper construction of s 29(1)(e), including meaning of 'person'" "Whether s 29(1)(e) is constitutionally invalid as repugnant to or incompatible with Supreme Court's institutional integrity"]
Ratio Decidendi
Section 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) must be read down so as not to interfere with an accused's right to a fair trial, including the right to obtain by subpoena relevant documents; the legislature has not manifested a clear intention to abrogate this right and the section primarily protects the identity of reporters, not absolute confidentiality of report contents; even if s 29(1)(e) is construed as precluding production, it is not constitutionally invalid as it represents a reasonable legislative balance and does not undermine the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
Each of the three questions submitted by the Attorney General answered in the negative; trial judge did not err.
Orders
- ['The Court answers each of the three questions submitted by the Attorney General for determination in the negative.' 'No order as to costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment