State of New South Wales v Wilmot

1. [1]

   HER HONOUR: On 17 June 2019 in the context of an application under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, I dealt with a late and inadequate application for suppression orders, and in the alternative, interim non-publication orders pursuant to s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act).

2. [2]

   I made interim orders (with short reasons provided to the parties) because the circumstances and gamut of previous orders made in other Courts was unclear and due to the lateness of the application and the disorganised way in which it was presented, there was insufficient material upon which to properly assess the basis and merit of the application.

3. [3]

   Three affidavits from the solicitor for the defendant have been tendered and I have been provided with written submissions from both parties.

The applicant defendant’s submissions

1. [4]

   The application by the defendant is now limited to an order seeking ongoing use of the pseudonym “XY” for the defendant for these proceedings and that his identify not be published, including his image.

2. [5]

   The submissions state that the defendant relies on the ground set out in s 8(1)(e) of the Act – that the order is “otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice”.

3. [6]

   It is submitted that the Court should bear in mind that it is at this stage unclear, regardless of what order the court makes on an interim basis, whether the final order will be an extended supervision order or a continuing detention order and that the Court should bear in mind that publishing the defendant’s identity and proceedings would impede his rehabilitation and his “attempts to take steps to resume something approaching a normal life after 21 years in prison”.

4. [7]

   Three cases were relied upon in support of the application. None of them are germane to the defendant’s circumstances at all, nor do they provide any support for the order sought.

5. [8]

   I have reproduced the plaintiff’s written submissions in full in this judgment as there is simply no benefit to be obtained by my attempting to summarise, reformulate or improve upon them. They are a model of their kind.

Plaintiff’s submissions

1. [9]

   Decision

2. [10]

   I accept the plaintiff’s submission in their entirety as a correct statement of the applicable and relevant law. I accept as authoritative and right the analysis of the issues as they relate to this defendant and this application. I accept as correct the analysis of the authorities relied upon by the defendant and the reasons submitted by the plaintiff as to why those authorities provide no support for the orders sought.

Orders

1. [11]

   For those reasons, I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      I revoke the interim non-publication orders made on 17 June 2019;

   2. (2)

      The defendant’s notice of motion filed in court on 17 June 2019 is dismissed.