REGINA v ROBINSON [2000] NSWSC 1157

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : REGINA v ROBINSON [2000] NSWSC 1157 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70051/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 10.07.00, 19.07.00, 03.08.00, 19.10.00 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 October 2000

PARTIES : Regina v Christopher Andrew Robinson JUDGMENT OF : Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M Marien (Crown) Mr T Molomby (Offender) SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (Offender) CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - whether offender's name should be published/broadcast - public interest considerations - s 11(4B) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 LEGISLATION CITED : Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 DECISION : See paragraph 5

Revised THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION ADAMS J

THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER 2000 70051/99

REGINA v CHRISTOPHER ANDREW ROBINSON

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: An application has been made on behalf of the offender that I should not make an order under s 11(4B) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The occasion for making such an order arises only in the event that s 11(1) applies to prohibit publication or broadcast of the offender's name. Section 11 (1) reads - "The name of any child- (a) who appears as a witness before a court in any criminal proceedings; (b) to whom any criminal proceedings relate; or (c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any criminal proceedings, shall not be published or broadcast, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of." 2 It appears to me that it does not apply to an offender, though a child at the time of the crime, who is not a child when any criminal proceedings are on foot or, at least, when they commenced. However, even if s 11 applied, this is a case in which I would authorise the publication or broadcasting of the offender's name. The public interest in the publicity of proceedings is a profoundly important one, even though it permits the hysterical and melodramatic publication of the circumstances of a crime. 3 There are at least two bases for this interest. The first is that it has always been a function of punishment that a crime is denounced. That denunciation is significantly incomplete if the person to whom it is directed remains anonymous. The second important element is that proceedings should take place in public unless there is an overwhelming countervailing consideration. It is part of that public character that requires, to my mind, the authorisation of the publication or broadcasting of the name of an offender, even when a child, where the crime renders that appropriate. 4 Here the offender is no longer a child and is over the age of twenty, though he has not yet reached the age of twenty-one. Consequently the considerations to which Mr Molomby has rightly referred concerning the difficulties this offender will face in prison will not, in my opinion, be ameliorated by any non-publication order. The fact of the matter is that it is inevitable that his identity with this crime will become known. Furthermore, those problems in the gaol system to which Mr Molomby made implicit reference do not, in a case of this kind, significantly arise out of the crime which has been committed but out of other matters to which it is unnecessary that I should refer. 5 Accordingly, on the assumption that I have power under section 11(4B) to authorise publication or broadcasting of the offender's name, I would exercise it in this case and I have no doubt that the making of such an order is in the interests of justice and that the prejudice to the offender does not out-weigh those interests. However, as I have already said, such an authorisation is unnecessary since I take the view that s 11 does not apply. ***************