This was a high profile trial which attracted large amounts of media interest.

The accused stood trial for a single count of sexual intercourse without consent. The trial proceeded over some three weeks but resulted in the discharge of the jury following the discovery of their having had access to material to which they should not have had access. On the day set down for the beginning of the re-trial, the Director of Public Prosecutions then indicated that a further trial would not be pursued. 

An order had been made suppressing the name of the original counsel for the accused, who had had to withdraw from the trial at short notice, resulting in an adjournment of the original trial date. The order had been made, inter alia, because the explanation for the barrister's unavailability was personal to that barrister. The question arose as to whether that suppression order should be continued, now that there was to be no further trial. Media intervenors argued against that course, submitting that the private interests of counsel were not sufficient warrant for the suppression order.

To read the full headnote on new Westlaw click here.