Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

DETECTIVE SENIOR CONSTABLE HOGAN INFORMANT

AND

DERRYN HINCH DEFENDANT

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4

10 March 2011

M105/2010

ORDER

Declare that s 42 of the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic) is not invalid upon any of the grounds asserted in submissions to this Court.

Representation

G J C Silbert SC with B L Sonnet and P D Herzfeld for the informant (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Victoria)

D M J Bennett QC with G Slater for the defendant (instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers)

Interveners

S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with A M Dinelli intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with R M Mitchell SC and A J Sefton intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by State Solicitor Western Australia)

R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with S A McDonald intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for South Australia)

M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with J K Kirk intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))

W Sofronoff QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland with G J D del Villar intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Hogan v Hinch

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III – Institutional integrity of State courts vested with federal jurisdiction – Section 42(1) of Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic) ("Act") allowed court to make "suppression order" preventing publication of evidence given, contents of documents adduced or information that might enable identification of offender in proceedings under Act, if court satisfied it is "in the public interest" to make order – Section 42(3) made publishing material in contravention of suppression order an offence – Defendant charged with publishing material identifying offenders in proceedings subject to suppression orders – Whether power conferred by s 42(1) impermissibly diminishes institutional integrity of State courts – Whether and to what extent there exists implication derived from Ch III that State and federal courts must be open to public and carry out activities in public.