Chaarani v DPP (Cth); Mohamed v DPP (Cth)

[2018] VSCA 299

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Fair trial
4. › Open justice
5. › Prejudicial publicity
6. › Suppression orders
7. › Whether jury verdicts should be suppressed pending second trial
8. › Whether suppression necessary to prevent real and substantial risk of prejudice
9. › Whether risk preventable by jury directions
10. › Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), ss 17, 18
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Suppression orders
3. › Appellate review of refusal to make suppression order
4. › Discretion conditioned on state of satisfaction as to necessity
5. › Whether conclusion reasonably open to trial judge
6. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied
7. › Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), ss 17, 18(1)(a)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Appeal against refusal to make suppression order in criminal proceedings
4. › Whether leave to appeal required
5. › Interlocutory applications in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings
6. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 14A, 17, 17A

Quick Take

Where a criminal trial has been fully reported without suppression, the word 'necessary' in s 18(1)(a) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) imposes a high standard that is not met merely because a second trial on related charges is pending, particularly where jury directions are available to ameliorate prejudice. Publication of jury verdicts is essential to the legitimacy of the jury trial system, and non-publication of verdicts in a widely reported trial would undermine public confidence in criminal justice. The appellate standard for reviewing a refusal to make a suppression order is whether the judge's conclusion was reasonably open, not whether it was correct.