JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LTD v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1988] NSWCA 75

JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LTD v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KirBy P, Hope JA and RoGgERS AJA 18 August 1988, 18 August 1988 [1988] NSWCA 75

KEY WORDS: EVIDENCE — CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — PRACTICE — PRINTING & NEWSPAPERS — DECLARATORY RELIEF EVIDENCE — Prohibition of publication of evidence — principles applicable — District Court judge in criminal proceedings in open court says that "no names are to be published" interpretation of statement — whether an order — whether authorized by s578, s578A of Crimes Act 1900 or otherwise — held: Not an order to attract prerogative relief for excess of jurisdiction — declaration made that not an order. CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — Sexual offences — reference to name of victim — legislative embargo (578A Crimes Act) — meaning of section — no necessity for order for section to apply — section extends to identifiers and not just name of victim PRACTICE — Standing — application for prerogative-type relief and declarations — alleged suppression order by District Court judge in criminal trial — whether newspaper has standing to challenge order — held: Newspaper has standing. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales & Anor (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 applied. PRINTING & NEWSPAPERS — Non publication order — need for care and caution in judicial statements which might have the effect of inhibiting free speech and coverage of what takes place in the courts of law. The King v Hamilton (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 277; Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd & Ors [1979] AC 440, 468; Raybos Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47, 57; and B v Medical Superintendent of Macquarie Hospital (1987) 10 NSWLR 440, 454 referred to. DECLARATORY RELIEF — Criminal proceedings — whether available to clarify statements of District Court judge which might be considered an order and which might inhibit free speech unless corrected — held: Declaration available even though prerogative relief is not. The Church of Scientology Inc & Anor v Woodward & Ors (1982) 154 CLR 25, 70 considered. Anderson v Attorney- General (1987) 10 NSWLR 198 applied. Crimes Act 1900, s578, s578A.