BENNETT BROOK DISABILITY
JUSTICE CENTRE — SUPREME COURT INJUNCTION
754. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Minister for Disability Services:
I refer to the minister's
answers to questions yesterday regarding the Bennett Brook Disability Justice
Centre and the government's injunction restraining the publication of
information concerning it.
(1) Can the minister identify the precise provisions
of the Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015 that
expressly prohibit the identification of a resident at the centre and which he
claims ''obliged'' the chief executive officer of the Department
of Communities to apply for an injunction?
(2) Apart from
the injunction granted on 3 August, when was the other injunction to which he
referred granted and by whom and what did it restrain?
(3) Will the minister now table the applications filed
in the Supreme Court, any orders made by the Supreme Court and any
evidence and submissions filed by the state to support these injunctions; and,
if not, why not?
(4) Has the minister read order 4 of the orders made
by His Honour Justice Tottle on 3 August 2019; and, if so, does he
maintain his view that reporting of escapes, assaults and failures to comply
with leave-of-absence conditions of residents is not gagged; and, if so, why?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON
replied:
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. This is a long question and it will be a long
answer, but it is important that I put it on the record.
(1) It is section 59(1) of the
Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015.
(2) On 27 May 2019, the Hon Justice Curthoys granted an
injunction restraining Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd from publishing
certain information. The orders made were: that the Nine Network be restrained
from publishing the report relating to the resident until further order of this
Court; that the Nine Network remove any publication referring to or depicting
the resident from all of its online platforms; and that there be liberty to
apply on 24 hours' notice.
On 23 July 2019, following an
application by the Disability Services Commission to reduce the scope of the
orders, Hon Justice Curthoys varied those orders —
1. The orders
made by the Hon Justice Curthoys on 27 May 2019 are vacated.
2. The Defendant is restrained from publishing any
material that identifies � (''the Resident'').
3. Any footage
of the Resident is to be wholly pixelated, including the Resident's
face and body.
4. The Defendant
is restrained from publishing any information concerning any resident (as
defined in section 3 of the Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act
2015 (WA)) that:
(a) discloses
events (or details thereof) or alleged conduct that occurred at a DSC Declared
Place, or in connection with a resident's custody at a DSC Declared
Place, including during leaves of absence; and
(b) which
information has not been made public by:
(i) the First
Plaintiff;
(ii) a
Government Department or agency, or an authorised representative thereof;
(iii) a
Minister, or an authorised representative thereof; or
(iv) any other
body with legal authority to make the disclosure.
5. For the
avoidance of doubt, subject to any written law or court order, order 4 does not
restrain the Defendant from publishing information that has been made public
in:
(a) Parliament;
or
(b) a Court
(other than a document already filed in this matter), Tribunal or Commission
sitting in public.
6. For the
purposes of order 4, a ''DSC Declared Place'' means a declared
place (as defined in section 23 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused)
Act 1996 (WA)) that is established by the First Plaintiff under the Disability
Services Act 1993 (WA).
7. There be
liberty to apply.
(3) I table the
attached orders with appropriate redactions. The applications, evidence and
submissions filed in the Supreme Court will not be tabled, as those documents
reveal the information that the department is seeking and required to protect.
[See paper 2903.]
(4) Yes, I have
read the orders as the members opposite have and, yes, I do maintain that view.
I note that Channel Nine ran its story on this matter whilst constrained by
substantially similar orders. I also note that the matter is being heard again
on Friday and I trust that the Supreme Court will deal with the matter
appropriately.