NSW Crime Commission v D181 [2020] NSWSC 813

NSW Crime Commission v D181 [2020] NSWSC 813

The Court vacated order 1(b) made on 27 November 2015 and order 3 made on 3 December 2015 because the orders prevented the Commission from disclosing material information about D181 to the DPP for pending criminal trials, and such disclosure was necessary for the Commission and then the DPP to comply with disclosure obligations and to avoid risk to the fairness of those trials; the continuing s 45 non-publication directions and the limited purpose of disclosure meant there was no relevant prejudice requiring D181 to be heard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application by Notice of Motion to Vacate Suppression and Non Publication Orders Relating to the Defendant's Identity and Pseudonym / Procedural Ruling on Ex Parte Application Heard in Closed Court
Outcome
Application granted; the specified suppression and pseudonym orders were vacated, with notations that the Commission's s 45 non-publication directions remain in effect.
Legal Topics
['variation or Vacation of Non Publication Orders' 'investigative Agency Duty of Disclosure' 'disclosure to Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' 'evidence Compelled by the NSW Crime Commission']
['criminal Procedure' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'crime Commission Powers'] ['variation or Vacation of Non Publication Orders' 'investigative Agency Duty of Disclosure' 'disclosure to Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' 'evidence Compelled by the NSW Crime Commission']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Notice of Motion to Vacate Suppression and Non Publication Orders Relating to the Defendant's Identity and Pseudonym / Procedural Ruling on Ex Parte Application Heard in Closed Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether order 1(b) made on 27 November 2015 and order 3 made on 3 December 2015 should be vacated to permit the Commission to disclose information about D181 to the DPP.' 'Whether the Court could make the orders sought ex parte and in closed court without hearing from D181.' 'Whether vacating the orders would cause relevant prejudice to D181 given the continuing non-publication directions under s 45 of the Crime Commission Act 2012.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court vacated order 1(b) made on 27 November 2015 and order 3 made on 3 December 2015 because the orders prevented the Commission from disclosing material information about D181 to the DPP for pending criminal trials, and such disclosure was necessary for the Commission and then the DPP to comply with disclosure obligations and to avoid risk to the fairness of those trials; the continuing s 45 non-publication directions and the limited purpose of disclosure meant there was no relevant prejudice requiring D181 to be heard.

Court Disposition

Application granted; the specified suppression and pseudonym orders were vacated, with notations that the Commission's s 45 non-publication directions remain in effect.

Orders

  • ['The Court vacates order 1(b) made on 27 November 2015 and order 3 made on 3 December 2015 in these proceedings.' "The Court notes that the defendant is no longer the subject of the charges which necessitated the Commission's application for leave pursuant to s 35A of the Crime Commission Act 2012." 'The Court...