CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — suppression and non-publication orders — whether order “necessary” to prevent prejudice to administration of justice or in the public interest — whether applicant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community would be compromised — applicant failed to establish necessity — notice of motion dismissed
Quick Take
1A co-offender who has been convicted and sentenced cannot invoke the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, or procedural fairness to suppress references to them in a co-accused's separate sentencing proceedings, where no further charges can be brought and the co-offender's proceedings are finalised.
2Generalised and speculative assertions that media reporting of a co-accused's proceedings may impair an offender's rehabilitation and reintegration do not satisfy the 'necessity' threshold under s 8(1)(a) or s 8(1)(e); the evidence must go beyond subjective distress at media coverage to demonstrate that rehabilitation would actually be compromised.
3The principle that co-offenders may be sentenced on different factual bases (as recognised in PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179) is a normal feature of the criminal justice system and does not, of itself, give rise to prejudice to the administration of justice warranting suppression.
