R v Sparos (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 307

R v Sparos (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 307

On the open and confidential affidavit material, the police concerns for Witness E's safety had a proper basis. Suppression of the witness's true identity, use of a pseudonym, suppression of identifying features and closure of the court during the witness's evidence were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to protect the safety of a person, and in the public interest, and suitable jury directions could minimise any prejudice to the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Notice of Motion Filed on 6 March 2018 Before Retrial Listed for 19 March 2018
Outcome
Application granted; pseudonym, suppression and closed court orders made.
Legal Topics
['suppression Order' 'non Publication Order' 'pseudonym Order' 'closed Court' 'witness Safety' 'open Justice']
['criminal Law' 'procedure'] ['suppression Order' 'non Publication Order' 'pseudonym Order' 'closed Court' 'witness Safety' 'open Justice']

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 Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Notice of Motion Filed on 6 March 2018 Before Retrial Listed for 19 March 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a civilian Crown witness should be allocated and referred to by the pseudonym "Witness E".' 'Whether the true identity of Witness E and identifying information should be suppressed under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).' "Whether the Court should be closed for the duration of Witness E's evidence." 'Whether the orders were necessary under s 8(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) while maintaining an appropriate balance with open justice and a fair trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the open and confidential affidavit material, the police concerns for Witness E's safety had a proper basis. Suppression of the witness's true identity, use of a pseudonym, suppression of identifying features and closure of the court during the witness's evidence were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to protect the safety of a person, and in the public interest, and suitable jury directions could minimise any prejudice to the accused.

Court Disposition

Application granted; pseudonym, suppression and closed court orders made.

Orders

  • ['The civilian Crown witness who has provided a statement in these proceedings under the pseudonym "Witness E", dated 31 August 2017, be allocated the pseudonym "Witness E".' 'The witness be referred to by that pseudonym during these proceedings, any other or further interlocutory proceedings conducted in connection...