Re APPLICATIONS BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (VIC) FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

9 VR 275·Winneke P, Ormiston and Vincent JJA
Purchase
9 VR 275
9 VR 275
Re APPLICATIONS BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (VIC) FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL Court of Appeal Winneke P, Ormiston and Vincent JJA 9 October 2003, 12 February 2004 [2004] VSCA 3 Appeal — Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal — Limited suppression orders made by judges of Trial Division — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal to entertain applications for leave by Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic) — Criminal law — Suppression orders banning publication of police evidence relating to techniques employed to obtain confessions — Power of court to make unlimited orders consistently with open justice — Supreme Court Act 1986 (No 110) ss 17(1), 17(2), 17A(3), 18, 19.. At the trial of two accused, separately presented on unrelated counts of murder, evidence of admissions was to be given by members of the Victoria police force who, while engaged as undercover operatives, had employed certain investigative and interrogative techniques for the purposes of securing those admissions. During the course of the proceedings an application was made on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Police to the respective trial judges to suppress, for an unlimited time, publication of the details of the names and identities of the undercover police officers who employed the techniques and the methodology and the techniques so employed. In each trial the application on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Police was entertained by the judge in camera. In each case the judge declined to make the orders sought in the unlimited form requested, but granted suppression orders in a limited form to expire on a particular date. When informed by counsel for the Chief Commissioner of her intention to appeal against the limited orders so made, each judge extended the operation of the orders so made until the hearing and determination of the respective appeal. The Chief Commissioner, by summons, sought leave to appeal against the orders made respectively by the two judges.

""

Continue Reading This Report

9 VR 275

One-off Purchase

$25
This report only
Permanent access
PDF download
Best Value

Digital Subscription

$45/mo
or $450/yrSAVE $90
All reports included
Unlimited access
Cancel anytime
Don't have an account? Create Account