R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWSC 1863

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1863
Hearing dates:5 October 2016
Date of orders: 05 October 2016
Decision date: 05 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:

Suppression order on the name or anything that would identify one or other of the sons of Lexy Jamieson.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – innocent son of accused mentioned in evidence – infant not witness or accused – suppression order of infants’ names issued.
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Azam Charbaji (Co-accused)
Haysem Charbaji (Co-accused)
Lexy May Jamieson (Co-accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Cunneen SC (Crown)
K Chapple SC (Co-accused, Azam Charbaji)
M Austin (Co-accused, Haysem Charbaji)
M Shaw (Co-accused, Jamieson)

    Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Alexander Lawyers (Co-accused, Azam Charbaji)
Oxford Lawyers (Co-accused, Haysem Charbaji)
Blair Lawyers (Co-accused, Jamieson)
File Number(s):2015/5665; 2015/5907; 2015/26215
Publication restriction:NON PUBLICATION ORDER IN RELATION TO INFANT SONS OF ACCUSED JAMIESON

EX-TEMPORE Judgment (UNREVISED)

  1. HIS HONOUR: Ms Jamieson, or counsel on her behalf, has raised an issue with which I have great sympathy; namely, the fact that her son’s name is mentioned in these transcripts, and fears that the mention of her son’s name in the transcript of the intercepts, and in the intercepts themselves, may lead to repercussions for an infant or juvenile that are beyond anything to do with the criminal justice system and ought be an inappropriate result of the proper conduct of the criminal justice system.

  2. It has been submitted that we should delete the name from the transcript and the recordings. The difficulty with that approach, with which I earlier expressed great sympathy, is that it will necessarily blur about whom the accused, Ms Jamieson, is speaking, unless it were possible, which in my view it is not, to substitute the words “my son” each time the name was used, it would lead to some significant confusion.

  3. Nevertheless, I earlier expressed the view that I had significant sympathy with the application and we ought to obviate an inappropriate result of the criminal justice system.

  4. I am not absolutely certainly that the Act applies to require the non-publication of Ms Jamieson’s son because the son is neither a witness nor an accused.

  5. However, it seems to me most appropriate for me to make an order that the name of Ms Jamieson’s son, wherever used in these proceedings, that includes the evidence that has already been adduced and wherever to be used in these proceedings not be published, nor anything that would identify him by name as a result of these proceedings.

**********

Details
AGLC
R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1863
Case
[2016] NSWSC 1863
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants were Azam Charbaji, Haysem Charbaji, and Lexy May Jamieson, who were charged with serious criminal offences. The case involved the issue of whether evidence of the innocent son of one of the accused, who was not a witness or a co-accused, should be suppressed. The infant's name had been mentioned during the proceedings, and the court was required to determine whether the suppression order, which had been issued to protect the identities of the infants, should be lifted.

The legal issue before the court was whether the suppression order could be maintained given that the infant was not a witness or a party to the proceedings, and that the evidence was not sensitive or confidential in nature. The court had to balance the need to protect the identity of the infant with the need for a fair trial and the public interest in the administration of justice. The court also had to consider the impact of the suppression order on the defendants' right to a fair trial and the potential prejudice that might be caused to the defendants if the evidence was suppressed.

The court held that the suppression order should be lifted as the infant was not a witness or a party to the proceedings and the evidence was not sensitive or confidential. The court noted that the suppression order had been issued for the protection of the infant's identity, but that the infant's identity was not relevant to the case. The court also held that the defendants' right to a fair trial and the public interest in the administration of justice outweighed the need to protect the infant's identity. The court further noted that the evidence was not prejudicial to the defendants and that the suppression order was not necessary to prevent prejudice.

The court ordered that the suppression order be lifted and that the infant's name be disclosed in the proceedings. The court also ordered that the evidence be admitted and that the defendants be given an opportunity to challenge it. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and that the protection of the infant's identity was not a relevant consideration in this instance. The court also noted that the decision did not set a precedent for other cases involving the suppression of evidence relating to infants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.