Application by John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd re MSK, MAK, MMK and MRK [2006] NSWCCA 386

Application by John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd re MSK, MAK, MMK and MRK [2006] NSWCCA 386

The application under s11(4B) failed because all relevant sentencing proceedings and appeals had concluded, and the words 'a court that sentences a person' and 'by order made at the time of sentencing' confine the power to the sentencing court at the time of sentencing. Because the Applicant did not press the variations of the Sully J and Hidden J orders unless it obtained the s11(4B) order, those variations were not made. The costs applications failed because there was no identified abuse of process and a successful jurisdictional objection alone did not justify a special costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Publication Orders and Variation of Non Publication or Pseudonym Orders / Separate Determination of Standing and Competency Issues in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['publication Orders' 'children in Criminal Proceedings' 'non Publication Orders' 'pseudonym Orders' 'standing and Jurisdiction' 'costs']
['criminal Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['publication Orders' 'children in Criminal Proceedings' 'non Publication Orders' 'pseudonym Orders' 'standing and Jurisdiction' 'costs']

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 Publication Orders and Variation of Non Publication or Pseudonym Orders / Separate Determination of Standing and Competency Issues in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could make an order under s11(4B) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 authorising publication of the names of MMK and MRK after all relevant sentencing proceedings and appeals had concluded.' 'Whether existing pseudonym or non-publication orders made by Sully J and Hidden J should be varied to permit publication of the names of MSK, MAK, MMK and MRK.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the Applicant on the basis of abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application under s11(4B) failed because all relevant sentencing proceedings and appeals had concluded, and the words 'a court that sentences a person' and 'by order made at the time of sentencing' confine the power to the sentencing court at the time of sentencing. Because the Applicant did not press the variations of the Sully J and Hidden J orders unless it obtained the s11(4B) order, those variations were not made. The costs applications failed because there was no identified abuse of process and a successful jurisdictional objection alone did not justify a special costs order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']