R v Tabbah; R v Tiriaki (No 3)

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. [1]

   HER HONOUR: This is an application for an order under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, in relation to the non-publication of photographs identifying the accused in this trial, in circumstances where it is believed that yesterday photographers took, or were attempting to take photographs of the accused while they were in handcuffs.

2. [2]

   The application is made in circumstances where, from the accuseds' point of view, it is submitted that visual identification is in issue. That is disputed by the Crown which says that the CCTV images in question are not of sufficient clarity to permit such identification. That is an issue, plainly, between the parties.

3. [3]

   The order is pressed on the basis that publication of such photographs could, in the circumstances, prevent the accused receiving a fair trial.

4. [4]

   It seems to me that, while somewhat finely balanced, the better course in the circumstances which have arisen is to make an order that no photograph identifying, or tending to identify either accused, being accompanied by members of Corrective Services staff, be published.

5. [5]

   LANGE: Before the court concludes the order, I have been reminded of one thing by my instructing solicitor. Would your Honour add also, "or if in handcuffs"? It may well be that through cropping the accused is not actually shown to be accompanied, and that would be prejudicial.

6. [6]

   I am satisfied, given the issue between the parties as to visual identification of the accused, that the order in the terms pressed is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and that is in the public interest, in order to ensure a fair trial.

7. [7]

   For these reasons, I order that: 1. No photograph identifying, or tending to identify either accused being accompanied by members of Corrective Service staff, or in handcuffs be published. The grounds on which the order is made are that I am satisfied, given the issue between the parties as to visual identification of the accused, that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and that is in the public interest, in order to ensure a fair trial.