R v Warwick (No.23) [2018] NSWSC 698

R v Warwick (No.23) [2018] NSWSC 698

The application for a non-publication order was dismissed because no evidence was provided that such an order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or to protect the safety of any person, and the legislative threshold of 'necessity' was not satisfied. The public interest in open justice outweighed the applicant's concerns.

Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Accused: Leonard John Warwick; Intervener: Media Organisations (9 Network, ABC, Channel 7, Fairfax Media Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (non Publication Order)
Outcome
application for non-publication order dismissed
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication Orders, Open Justice, Administration of Justice
Criminal Law Procedural Law Suppression Orders Non Publication Orders Open Justice Administration of Justice

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Leonard John Warwick

Accused

Media Organisations (9 Network, ABC, Channel 7, Fairfax Media Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (non Publication Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-publication order in relation to the Crown's opening statement is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice
  2. 2 Whether a non-publication order is necessary to protect the safety of the accused or his family

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a non-publication order was dismissed because no evidence was provided that such an order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or to protect the safety of any person, and the legislative threshold of 'necessity' was not satisfied. The public interest in open justice outweighed the applicant's concerns.

Court Disposition

application for non-publication order dismissed

Orders

  • Order 1 sought in the Accused's Notice of Motion filed 15 May 2018 is dismissed