Medich v Local Court of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1338

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Medich v Local Court of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1338 Hearing dates: 16 September 2013 Decision date: 16 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Suppression orders made Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - suppression order Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ronald Edward Medich (Plaintiff) Local Court of New South Wales (First Defendant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr W Terracini SC with Ms A Francis (Plaintiff) Ms C Webster SC (Second Defendant) Solicitors: Australian Criminal Law Specialists (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor (First Defendant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/267841

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: In this matter, it has become necessary to hear, in large part, the proceedings in closed court pursuant to the Court's inherent powers. That has been because the evidence and submissions have concerned the identity of persons whose identities have thus far been suppressed from disclosure, and because the evidence and submissions have referred to other matters that should not be disclosed. 2I have had regard, pursuant to s 6 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice. 3In this matter, I am satisfied that suppression orders are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and/or it is necessary in the public interest for such orders to be made; that public interest outweighs the public interest in open justice. 4I make a suppression order in respect of anything that would identify the persons known as HS845 and P460 - the latter, I am told, has now also come to be known as "Simon" - until further order. 5I make a suppression order prohibiting disclosure in respect of all other evidence and submissions that I have heard and read until further order. But I will have the matter relisted before me for consideration as to whether that order should continue at 10am on Friday, 6 December 2013. 6For clarity, I confirm that there is no prohibition of disclosure of the fact that the proceedings concern a decision of her Honour Magistrate Stevenson sitting at Central Local Court not to permit Bassam Safetli to be cross-examined in committal proceedings concerning the plaintiff. Nor is there any prohibition on the fact that the plaintiff has instituted proceedings in this Court seeking, in effect, to overturn that decision, and that I have reserved my decision and hope to be in a position to give judgment on Wednesday, 18 September 2013.