CRAMPTON v DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NSW) [1997] NSWCA 83

CRAMPTON v DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NSW)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER and HANDLEY JJA, and GILEs J 7 July 1997

[1997] NSWCA 83

Meagher JA. This is an application under s SF, in respect of an order made by his Honour Judge Nield below, in a case involving a school master against whom improper behaviour had been alleged. The Magistrate had made an order forbidding the publication of the name of the accused. The source of power seemed to be identified under s 578 of the Crimes Act.

At the trial, immediately before the trial began, his Honour Judge Nield was asked to make another order, in relation to the same matter. Exactly what order his Honour was asked to make is impossible to understand. At one part of the transcript, counsel for the accused is credited with making the following application: "What is sought to be restricted is the evidence in the case." That on the face of it, would seem to be an application that all the evidence in the case be suppressed. It is difficult to see how his Honour ever could have made that order. On the same page, however, same counsel makes an entirely different application: "We ask only that the order be permitted to continue until the trial."

The order referred to there is the order which the Magistrate had made, namely that the name of the accused be suppressed. Section 578 permits the suppression of evidence, it does not permit the suppression of names, so that order was destined to failure. In the event, his Honour declined to make any order that the counsel for the accused sought. Insofar as his Honour did so refuse, his Honour was, with respect, perfectly correct.

His Honour also held he had no jurisdiction to prohibit publication of the name of the accused and, therefore, refused to prohibit the publication of the name of the accused. This is perfectly correct and in my view his Honour was correct in so doing.