Commissioner of Police v Cole (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 561

Commissioner of Police v Cole (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 561

Given the real risk to a person's safety and potential for identification arising from passages in the closed court transcript, and applying the balancing exercise under the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), suppression and non-publication orders are necessary and justified.

Parties
Plaintiff: Commissioner of Police; First Defendant: Mitchell Alexander Cole; Second Defendant: Benjamin James Main; Third Defendant: Andrew Robert Manners; Fourth Defendant: Matthew Francis Maybury; Fifth Defendant: Troy Vanderlight
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Suppression and Non Publication Order
Outcome
Suppression and non-publication orders made concerning specified portions of closed court transcript to protect confidential source, with stated exceptions.
Legal Topics
Suppression Order, Non Publication Order, Serious Crime Prevention Order, Confidential Evidence, Public Interest Immunity
Civil Procedure Suppression Order Non Publication Order Serious Crime Prevention Order Confidential Evidence Public Interest Immunity

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Police

Plaintiff

Mitchell Alexander Cole

First Defendant

Benjamin James Main

Second Defendant

Andrew Robert Manners

Third Defendant

Matthew Francis Maybury

Fourth Defendant

Troy Vanderlight

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Suppression and Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suppression and non-publication orders should be made under the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) over confidential parts of the transcript to protect the identity of a source in a police affidavit and ensure safety.
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in secrecy and informer protection outweighs the general principle of open justice and disclosure in court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the real risk to a person's safety and potential for identification arising from passages in the closed court transcript, and applying the balancing exercise under the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), suppression and non-publication orders are necessary and justified.

Court Disposition

Suppression and non-publication orders made concerning specified portions of closed court transcript to protect confidential source, with stated exceptions.

Orders

  • Prohibition on publication or disclosure of specified closed court sections of the transcript of the hearing on 11 April 2018 (Page 24 Line 35 to Page 26 Line 42; Page 27 Line 12 to Page 27 Line 27; Page 30 Line 35 to Page 33 Line 17; Page 41 Line 5 to Page 46 Line 15) pursuant to s 7 of the Courts Suppression and...
  • Order subject to exceptions for confidential legal communications necessary for conduct or defence of the proceedings and for communications within NSW Police for official purposes.