Regina v A, Regina v S, Regina v M [2005] NSWSC 478

Regina v A, Regina v S, Regina v M [2005] NSWSC 478

The order was necessary because, if the trials proceeded back-to-back, the marked constellation of similarities between the current trial and the later trials made it virtually inevitable that at least one juror in each subsequent trial would connect the published evidence with the allegations then being tried. Existing name suppression, partial suppression and jury directions would not adequately avert that risk, and a further adjournment would have to be lengthy and was unacceptable given the already serious delay, the emotional toll on the young complainants, and the risk of miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Application Concerning Non Publication Order in Sexual Assault Trials / Application by ABC to Revoke Non Publication Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['non Publication Order' 'sexual Assault Trials' 'back to Back Trials' 'fair Trial' 'media Reporting' 'suppression of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'open Justice'] ['non Publication Order' 'sexual Assault Trials' 'back to Back Trials' 'fair Trial' 'media Reporting' 'suppression of Evidence']

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 Concerning Non Publication Order in Sexual Assault Trials / Application by ABC to Revoke Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order prohibiting publication of any of the evidence in the first trial should be revoked.' 'Whether suppression of evidence was necessary to protect the fairness of the subsequent back-to-back trials.' 'Whether existing name suppression orders, jury directions, partial suppression, or adjournment of later trials would sufficiently avoid prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order was necessary because, if the trials proceeded back-to-back, the marked constellation of similarities between the current trial and the later trials made it virtually inevitable that at least one juror in each subsequent trial would connect the published evidence with the allegations then being tried. Existing name suppression, partial suppression and jury directions would not adequately avert that risk, and a further adjournment would have to be lengthy and was unacceptable given the already serious delay, the emotional toll on the young complainants, and the risk of miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application to revoke the non-publication order is refused.' 'The non-publication order will remain in force.']