R v Sridharan[2016] QDCPR 13

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

2. [2]
   The complainant company, Company “A”, applies for the following orders:

1. (a)
   That these proceedings be heard in Camera;

2. (b)
   The complainant be referred to in the proceedings by the pseudonym Company “A”; and

3. (c)
   Publication of the following be prohibited:

1. (i)
   The name of Company “A” in relation to these proceedings;

2. (ii)
   Details of Company “A” that may reveal it as the victim in these proceedings; and

3. (iii)
   Details of the alleged blackmail in these proceedings that may identify Company “A” as the victim in these proceedings.

Charge

3. [3]
   The defendant is charged with one count of extortion contrary to s 415(1) of the Criminal Code1899 (Q). The allegation against the defendant is that between 15 and 31 March 2015 he threatened to publish allegations that the complainant undertook unhealthy and unlawful practices in respect of processing a food products unless the complainant paid to him a sum of $12,700,000.00.

4. [4]
   The complainant is an Australian company which carries on the business of producing and supplying food products, both domestically and internationally. The complainant has over 8,000 employees in various locations throughout Australia and New Zealand.

5. [5]
   On 10 August 2015, the defendant was arrested and charged with extortion. On 28 September 2015, at the accused’s first committal mention the complainant applied to close the Court and foreshadowed an application for further orders to protect its reputational interests. The Court was closed and the application was heard on 16 October 2015. On 16 October 2015, the magistrate ordered that the defendant’s committal proceedings be heard in a closed court and suppression orders be put in place.

6. [6]
   The complainant, in effect, is seeking for a continuation of the orders made in the Magistrates Court.

7. [7]
   Joshua Paul White, a solicitor employed by Thomson Geer, has sworn an affidavit filed 27 June 2016. He swears:

“The company’s reputation will be placed in jeopardy by the publication of its name in connection with the subject of the extortion. It is stated further that should the Court not be closed then the evidence led by the Crown would tend inevitably to identify the complainant.”

Submissions by the applicant

8. [8]
   The applicant submits:

1. (a)
   There is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate damage prior to the granting of such an order. It may be inferred that consequences will flow from the disclosure of such information.

2. (b)
   The defendant has complied with the existing orders.

3. (c)
   The defendant will still have the right to cross-examine at large.

4. (d)
   If the material is published then the policy which protects victims of blackmail would be defeated.

5. (e)
   The proceedings would otherwise be recorded.

9. [9]
   In the circumstances, it is submitted that this is an appropriate case for the orders to be made.

10. [10]
    In further submissions the applicant submits that the proceedings should be heard in camera because of the risk that persons might be unaware of the orders of non-publication of the name and might inadvertently publish it.

Relevant law

11. [11]
    It is a fundamental principle of law that the administration of justice should be carried out in public.^[1]The Court, however, has the power if the public interest or the interests of justice require, to limit the extent to which the business of the Court is open to the public.^[2]A Court may depart from the general rule if its observance would frustrate the administration of justice or if there is some other public interest for whose protection parliament has modified the open justice rule.^[3]Exceptions to the general rule exist in cases where the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction would be defeated or frustrated if the proceedings were held in public.^[4]

12. [12]
    Although the classes of case for exclusion are not limited, the cases in which the exception is acknowledged include cases of blackmail and extortion.^[5]It is recognised by the courts in the prosecution of a blackmailer that the name of the blackmailer’s victim may be supressed because of the “keen public interest in getting blackmailers convicted and sentenced” and the difficulties that may be encountered in getting complainants to come forward “unless they are given this kind of protection”.^[6]

13. [13]
    The District Court has power to make such orders. In R v His Honour Judge Noud ex parte McNamara^[7]although the orders made by the District Court were set aside it was acknowledged that although the District Court was not a court of general jurisdiction it had all such incidental jurisdiction as was necessary for the effective exercise of its jurisdiction, including a power to ensure justice was properly administered in proceedings that had been commenced in that Court. The starting point must be the proposition that justice should always be administered in public. McPherson J adopted the statements of principle referred to in R v Socialist Worker Printers.^[8]

14. [14]
    It seems to me there is no valid distinction between the crime of extortion and the crime of blackmail. Indeed, there is no separate offence of blackmail under the Queensland Criminal Code. In those circumstances it seems to me that the principles equally apply to a case of blackmail.

Disposition

15. [15]
    In this case it is my view that striking the balance between the necessity for courts to be held in public and the competing need to prevent the prejudice to the administration of justice, I am prepared to make an order that the complainant’s name be suppressed.

16. [16]
    It seems to me important that complainants not be discouraged from coming forward to provide information to the Police against persons who commit crimes of extortion in circumstances such as this. In my view there is a real chance that publication of the complainant’s name could adversely affect its business interests.

17. [17]
    I am also prepared to make an order prohibiting the publication of information which could tend to identify the identity of the complainant.

18. [18]
    I am not disposed, however, to ordering that the proceedings be held in camera. I consider the first two orders are sufficient to achieve the purposes of justice but to order the proceedings be heard in camera is to go too far because I think that would unnecessarily infringe upon the necessity that justice be heard in public.

19. [19]
    Counsel for the applicant provided by email a notice which he submits shall be placed on the door of the court during the trial. This is Annexure A to this Judgment. I consider this to be appropriate. I consider this removes the risk that people might inadvertently publish the name of the complainant. Trial obviously enough includes any sentence or pre-trial hearing.

Orders

20. [20]
    In the circumstances, I make the following orders:

1. The complainant in these proceedings be identified as Company “A”; and

2. The Court prohibits the publication of information which may tend to identify the identity of the complainant.

3. A notice in terms of Annexure A is to be placed on each side of the entrance to the court in which the trial is conducted during the trial.