The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44

The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44

A further non-publication order was not necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The Court was not persuaded that prospective jurors were likely to search for and read the Judgment, jurors would be directed not to conduct internet research, and the Judgment contained no material that would prejudice the appellants or their defence. Redactions or pseudonyms were unwarranted and might themselves invite speculation, while withholding the reasons would be contrary to the public interest in open justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of a Non Publication Order in Respect of Judgment in a Criminal Matter / Full Court Consideration After Dismissal of Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Sever and Stay Charges
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim non-publication order not further extended and no replacement order made.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'fair Trial' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'jury Directions']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Procedure'] ['non Publication Orders' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'fair Trial' 'prejudice to the Proper Administration of Justice' 'jury Directions']

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

Application for Extension of a Non Publication Order in Respect of Judgment in a Criminal Matter / Full Court Consideration After Dismissal of Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Sever and Stay Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the existing non-publication order over the Court's reasons should be extended until the conclusion of the trial or to 30 June 2020." 'Whether a limited non-publication order permitting publication only of a redacted judgment and/or use of pseudonyms was necessary.' "Whether publication of the judgment would risk jurors or prospective jurors being improperly influenced by extraneous material and thereby prejudice the appellants' fair trial." 'Whether any order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

A further non-publication order was not necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The Court was not persuaded that prospective jurors were likely to search for and read the Judgment, jurors would be directed not to conduct internet research, and the Judgment contained no material that would prejudice the appellants or their defence. Redactions or pseudonyms were unwarranted and might themselves invite speculation, while withholding the reasons would be contrary to the public interest in open justice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim non-publication order not further extended and no replacement order made.

Orders

  • ["The appellants' application for an extension of the non-publication order made on 6 March 2020, or in the alternative the making of a limited non-publication order which would permit publication of a redacted version of the judgment handed down on 6 March 2020, and/or the use of pseudonyms, be dismissed."]