State of NSW v De La Torre

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v De La Torre [2014] NSWSC 1212
Hearing dates: 1 September 2014
Decision date: 01 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Access to the Supreme Court file granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing Roy De La Torre

Catchwords: ACCESS - documents relevant to imminent sentence hearing
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Serious Offenders) Act 2006
Cases Cited: State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Roy De La Torre (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
G Hazlitt (Plaintiff)
B Thomson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/244925

Judgment

The DPP applies, by notice of motion filed in Court this morning, for access to the Court file. The DPP relies in support of his application on an affidavit of Mary Papanis of 22 August 2014.

This application arises by reason of an order made by Garling J in the substantive proceedings, State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263, in which the plaintiff sought an extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act).

On 28 October 2011 Garling J made orders in respect of the defendant pursuant to the Act. His Honour also made a direction that, in the event that any application for access is made by a non-party to the matter in respect of any document contained on the Court file, the Registrar of the Court is to notify the parties to the summons and provide them with an opportunity to make submissions on whether access should be granted.

The sentence hearing in respect of the defendant is listed this Thursday before Mahony DCJ. The DPP seeks access to the Court file in this matter for the purposes of making submissions at that hearing.

Mr Hazlitt, who appears for the DPP, has informed me of the relevance of the material, which is apparent in any event from the material itself, which includes psychologic and psychiatric reports concerning the offender.

Mr Thomson, who is instructed by the Crown Solicitor's Office and who appears on behalf of the Attorney General, informs me that the psychological and psychiatric material on the Court file has been reviewed on behalf of the Attorney General to ascertain whether there is any material of a confidential nature. Those responsible for that review have satisfied themselves that there is no such material within the psychological and psychiatric reports. Indeed, he submitted, and I agree, that as a matter of fairness to the offender it is desirable that the sentencing judge have access to such material as is contained in the Court file.

Accordingly, I make an order that access to the Supreme Court file and its contents be granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing the defendant.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the State of New South Wales against the defendant, De La Torre. The matter centred around the defendant's application for access to documents relevant to an imminent sentence hearing. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The State argued against the disclosure of certain documents, citing potential prejudice to the fairness of the trial process and the need to protect sensitive information.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the defendant was entitled to access the documents in question under the common law right to a fair trial or any statutory provisions that might apply. The court was required to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial against the potential harm that could arise from the disclosure of the documents. This involved a detailed analysis of the principles of open justice, the need for a fair trial, and the confidentiality obligations of the State.

The court determined that the defendant had a right to access the documents that were pertinent to the sentencing hearing. The reasoning was based on the principle that a fair trial includes the right to prepare a defence and challenge the evidence against the defendant. The court held that the documents in question were integral to the defendant's ability to effectively argue for a more lenient sentence. While acknowledging the State's concerns about confidentiality, the court found that these concerns did not outweigh the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court ordered that the relevant documents be disclosed to the defendant's legal team within a specified timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	State of NSW v De La Torre [2014] NSWSC 1212
Hearing dates:	1 September 2014
Decision date:	01 September 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Adamson J
Decision:	Access to the Supreme Court file granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing Roy De La Torre
Catchwords:	ACCESS - documents relevant to imminent sentence hearing
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Serious Offenders) Act 2006
Cases Cited:	State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Roy De La Torre (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: G Hazlitt (Plaintiff) B Thomson (Defendant) Solicitors: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2011/244925