Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 366

Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 366

Proof of guilty knowledge is required to establish an offence under s 68(1) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1986. In the absence of evidence that the respondent knew that care proceedings had occurred and that the article connected the child with such proceedings, no offence is established.

Parties
Appellant: Leesa Waters; Respondent: Pacific Publications Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Stated Case (criminal Statutory Offence) / Supreme Court Decision on Stated Case Appeal From Local Court Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Question raised by stated case answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Mens Rea, Publication Restrictions, Children (care and Protection) Act 1986 S 68
Criminal Law Child Protection Law Media Law Statutory Interpretation Mens Rea Publication Restrictions Children (care and Protection) Act 1986 S 68

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leesa Waters

Appellant

Pacific Publications Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Stated Case (criminal Statutory Offence) / Supreme Court Decision on Stated Case Appeal From Local Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 68(1) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1986 requires proof of mens rea (guilty knowledge)
  2. 2 Whether an offence is established by naming a child in an article where there was no explicit reference to care proceedings under Pt 5 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Proof of guilty knowledge is required to establish an offence under s 68(1) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1986. In the absence of evidence that the respondent knew that care proceedings had occurred and that the article connected the child with such proceedings, no offence is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Question raised by stated case answered in the negative.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs.