Regina v Khazaal [2006] NSWSC 1353

Regina v Khazaal [2006] NSWSC 1353

Undertakings and court orders are sufficient to protect sensitive national security information and the integrity of the judicial process; the conduct of Mr Lange and Mr Houda, though not beyond criticism, does not warrant depriving the accused of his choice of counsel and solicitor. The Commonwealth’s motion for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Commonwealth of Australia; Accused: Belal Saadallah Khazaal; Respondent: Peter Lange; Respondent: Adam Houda; Interested Party: NSW Bar Association & NSW Law Society
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
National Security Information, Confidentiality, Public Interest Immunity, Right to Counsel, Professional Conduct
Criminal Law Equity National Security Information Confidentiality Public Interest Immunity Right to Counsel Professional Conduct

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth of Australia

Applicant

Belal Saadallah Khazaal

Accused

Peter Lange

Respondent

Adam Houda

Respondent

NSW Bar Association & NSW Law Society

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should Mr Lange and Mr Houda be restrained from representing the accused due to exposure to national security information?
  2. 2 Are undertakings and court orders sufficient to protect confidential information and the integrity of the judicial process?
  3. 3 Does inadvertent disclosure warrant removal of counsel and solicitor from representing the accused in a criminal trial?

Ratio Decidendi

Undertakings and court orders are sufficient to protect sensitive national security information and the integrity of the judicial process; the conduct of Mr Lange and Mr Houda, though not beyond criticism, does not warrant depriving the accused of his choice of counsel and solicitor. The Commonwealth’s motion for restraint lacks utility and is denied.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that the Notice of Motion herein be dismissed.
  • I publish my reasons.