SG v DPP [2003] NSWCA 128

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : SG v DPP [2003] NSWCA 128 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Hodgson JA; McColl JA DECISION : Leave to appeal refused. Summons dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS : CONTEMPT OF COURT - restraint of pre-trial publicity - protection of fairness and integrity of criminal trial - interlocutory relief - refused - leave to appeal refused LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) CASES CITED : John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 SG PARTIES : v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40419/03 Applicant - P Kintominas COUNSEL : Opponent 1 - S Kavanagh Opponents 2 & 3 - D R Sibtain Applicant - Benjamin & Khoury SOLICITORS : Opponent 1 - I V Knight Opponents 2 and 3 - Freehills

LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT CLD 12955/02 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Grove J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

40419/03 CLD 12955/02 HANDLEY JA HODGSON JA McCOLL JA

16 May 2003 SG v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS

Judgment – On application for leave to appeal 1 HANDLEY JA: The principles which must guide the Court in cases such as this are those stated by McHugh JA in John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 at 476-7. Having regard to those principles the Court does not consider that this is a proper case for the grant of leave to appeal. 2 The trial of the claimant for murder will not take place for at least 10 months, possibly longer. While we do not doubt that this Court has power to grant injunctive and other relief to protect the integrity and fairness of a criminal trial, particularly a trial in the Supreme Court on serious charges such as murder, we do not consider that at this stage there is a sufficient threat to the integrity and fairness of a future criminal trial of the claimant to warrant interlocutory relief. 3 Some statements in the reasons for judgment of Grove J, read in isolation, might appear to deny the existence of such a jurisdiction in this Court. However these statements may well have been directed to the arguments before his Honour which appear to have concentrated on the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over the Local Court and the powers of this Court conferred by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act. 4 Leave to appeal is refused. The summons is dismissed with costs. The undertaking of the claimant's solicitor to file the summons for leave to appeal has been noted. ******