NSW Crime Commission v D150; NSW Crime Commission v D151; NSW Crime Commission v D152; NSW Crime Commission v D153 [2020] NSWSC 811

NSW Crime Commission v D150; NSW Crime Commission v D151; NSW Crime Commission v D152; NSW Crime Commission v D153 [2020] NSWSC 811

Because the defendants' charges had been finally dealt with and the Commission's evidence may be relevant to pending prosecutions of other persons, the existing suppression orders prevented the Commission from complying with its disclosure obligations to the DPP. Vacating and varying the orders was necessary to allow disclosure to the DPP and to avoid a risk that pending trials would be unfair or convictions set aside, while the Commission's s 45 non-publication directions remained in effect and no relevant prejudice to the defendants required hearing from them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application by Notices of Motion to Vacate or Vary Suppression and Non Publication Orders Made in Proceedings Under the Crime Commission Act 2012 (nsw) / Ex Parte Application Heard in Closed Court
Outcome
Orders varied; order 1(b) vacated and order 4 varied as it applied to D150, D151, D152 and D153.
Legal Topics
['crime Commission Powers' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'duty of Disclosure' 'variation of Orders' 'ex Parte Closed Court Hearing']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['crime Commission Powers' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'duty of Disclosure' 'variation of Orders' 'ex Parte Closed Court Hearing']

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 by Notices of Motion to Vacate or Vary Suppression and Non Publication Orders Made in Proceedings Under the Crime Commission Act 2012 (nsw) / Ex Parte Application Heard in Closed Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders 1(b) and 4 made on 3 December 2015 should be vacated or varied to permit the Commission to disclose each defendant's identity and related information to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions." 'Whether the application could be determined ex parte without prejudice to D150, D151, D152 and D153.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants' charges had been finally dealt with and the Commission's evidence may be relevant to pending prosecutions of other persons, the existing suppression orders prevented the Commission from complying with its disclosure obligations to the DPP. Vacating and varying the orders was necessary to allow disclosure to the DPP and to avoid a risk that pending trials would be unfair or convictions set aside, while the Commission's s 45 non-publication directions remained in effect and no relevant prejudice to the defendants required hearing from them.

Court Disposition

Orders varied; order 1(b) vacated and order 4 varied as it applied to D150, D151, D152 and D153.

Orders

  • ['The Court varies the orders made on 3 December 2015 in these proceedings by vacating order 1(b).' 'The Court varies order 4 in so far as it applies to D150, D151, D152 and D153 by deleting "the defendants be referred to by the pseudonyms D150 to D155" and substituting "the fifth and sixth defendants are to be...