Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194

Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194

The appellant did not demonstrate that a non-publication order was necessary. The material about prior convictions, Ms Rautenberg's involvement, and other personal or trial details had been tendered or canvassed in open court without restriction, reputational harm was not a sufficient basis for an order, and no appreciable increased risk to safety from publication of the principal judgment was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Publication Order / Consequential Orders Following Principal Judgment Dismissing Conviction Appeal and Granting Leave to Appeal Sentence But Dismissing That Appeal
Outcome
Application for non-publication order refused.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'publication of Judgments on Caselaw' 'personal Safety' 'reputation']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Procedure'] ['non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'publication of Judgments on Caselaw' 'personal Safety' 'reputation']

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 for Non Publication Order / Consequential Orders Following Principal Judgment Dismissing Conviction Appeal and Granting Leave to Appeal Sentence But Dismissing That Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a non-publication order should be made restricting publication of the Court's reasons on Caselaw or other public databases." "Whether concerns about the appellant's prior convictions, reputation, standing and safety in custody made a non-publication order necessary." "Whether publication of the involvement of the appellant's McKenzie friend should be restricted to protect her reputation." 'Whether alleged safety concerns involving co-offenders, associates and family details justified a non-publication order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not demonstrate that a non-publication order was necessary. The material about prior convictions, Ms Rautenberg's involvement, and other personal or trial details had been tendered or canvassed in open court without restriction, reputational harm was not a sufficient basis for an order, and no appreciable increased risk to safety from publication of the principal judgment was established.

Court Disposition

Application for non-publication order refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']