ARTEMIS MEDIA PTY LTD [2026] WASC 132 (14 April 2026)

1. Andrew Mallard was charged with the wilful murder of Pamela Lawrence in Mosman Park in May 1994.
2. As part of that police investigation, Mr Mallard was interviewed by police on 17 June 1994 and that interview was videotaped (Mallard interview). This interview is the subject of the first four orders sought, by the Application.
3. The history of Mr Mallard's conviction; his appeal to the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal;[3] the hearing of a further reference to that Court;[4] and his successful appeal to the High Court which resulted in his conviction being quashed in November 2005;[5] are all matters of public record.
4. Subsequently, the prosecution against Mr Mallard was discontinued and there was then a review of the investigation.
5. In the course of that investigation, certain evidence came to light which identified Simon Rochford as a suspect in Ms Lawrence's murder.
6. Mr Rochford was then serving a sentence in Albany Regional Prison for the murder of his girlfriend. He was interviewed in prison by police on 11 May 2006; which interview was also videotaped (Rochford interview). This interview is the subject of the last three orders sought by the Application.
7. A week later, a television broadcast named Mr Rochford as a suspect in Ms Lawrence's murder. Soon after, Mr Rochford committed suicide.
8. Subsequently to Mr Rochford's death, the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) conducted an investigation and, in the course of that investigation, conducted public examinations. The CCC described the scope of its investigation as:

Whether any public officer engaged in misconduct in connection with the investigation of the murder of Pamela Lawrence, the prosecutions and appeals of Andrew Mark Mallard and other matters related to and touching upon these events.

1. The above matters and the CCC's investigation were recounted by Martin CJ in ex parte West Australian Newspapers Limited[6] who said:

The murder of Mrs Lawrence, the subsequent conviction and discharge of Mr Mallard, and the death of Mr Rochford have become a cause célèbre. They have attracted much media and public attention. The public hearings of the CCC also attracted a great deal of media and public attention. ...[7]

1. The Mallard interview was played before the CCC on 1 August 2007.[8]
2. Extracts of the Rochford interview were played before the CCC on 31 July 2007.[9]
3. The Rochford interview was released (by the CCC) to representatives of the media including the ABC following an order made in 2008 by the Court of Appeal following the decision in ex parte West Australian Newspapers. As Martin CJ explained, the effect of the order made by the Court of Appeal was to leave the CCC to determine whether to supply the Rochford interview pursuant to its governing legislation.[10]
4. In September 2010, Martin CJ made an order (in CIV 2371 of 2010) which enabled the ABC to supply, access and broadcast the Mallard interview; which was then used as part of an ABC program 'Australian Story'.[11]
5. It appears that the ABC has copies of extracts of the Rochford interview which had been released to it by those orders,[12] although it has been unable to locate its copy of the Mallard interview.[13]
6. On 24 October 2025, the CCC stated in a letter to the plaintiff[14] that:
   1. the Deputy Commissioner had certified that the disclosure of the CCC's full hearing transcripts from its previous investigation was necessary in the public interest and may be disclosed to the plaintiff;
   2. it was not feasible for the CCC to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the video of the Rochford interview; and
   3. suggested that enquiries be made, instead, with the Commissioner of Police.

1. The plaintiff is in the business of producing films and documentaries.[15]
2. The plaintiff has previously produced a documentary called 'Saving Andrew Mallard', which:

... detailed the work of Andrew's family and supporters in their efforts to prove Andrew's innocence. 'Saving Andrew Mallard' shone a light on the police investigation and court process in a critical and informative way.[16]

1. The plaintiff has now been commissioned by the ABC to produce a further documentary.[17]
2. The plaintiff stated that it is:

... intending to produce a documentary which re‑visits the investigation of the murder of Pamela Lawrence, the arrest and conviction of Andrew Mallard, now deceased, and examines the background of suspect Simon Rochford, now deceased ... .[18]

1. The new documentary which the plaintiff wishes to make was described as follows:
   1. In this new project, using the provisional working title of the 'Palm Print', the Documentary re-visits the investigation of Pamela Lawrence's murder, the arrest and conviction of Andrew Mallard, the subsequent appeals, the High Court ruling that led to Andrew Mallard's release from prison, and the Crime and Corruption Commission hearings held in 2008.
   2. In addition, the Documentary looks at the story of Simon Rochford, whose details were later matched to the crime scene and murder weapon of Pamela Lawrence. The Documentary traces Rochford back to the UK and investigates his life there. It links him to an area of the UK where there are multiple unsolved murders.
   3. Alongside revisiting historic systemic failings, the Documentary will investigate unsolved crimes and discuss improvements in Australia's judicial system. The Documentary also provides a compelling argument about how valuable the community can be, in ensuring that justice prevails.[19]
2. The plaintiff submitted that there is a public interest, going beyond mere curiosity, in the making of the documentary and, by extension, being able to make use of the two interviews as follows:

(a) The public concern for one of the most serious crimes committed under Western Australian law;

(b) The accountability of the police in their investigations of crimes;

(c) The public understanding of the judicial system, especially in a context of the significant public resources devoted to the Mallard case;

(d) The role of the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia (CCC);

(e) It is submitted that the making of directions to allow access and broadcast of the Interview would enhance the public interest in the administration of justice. Modern technology has found a way in which to overcome the obstacle of members of the public not being physically present to observe in this case the proceedings of the CCC (and in the case of the Mallard interview, the criminal proceedings and the CCC)[;]

(f) A written account of the interviews does not adequately communicate its contents to members of the public. Further, in this case the mode of communication (and the communication of demeanour from the videotape) is an essential part of the substance of the communication. The public gain a better understanding of the criminal process. There is a 'public interest in having available the best information which bears upon issues of public importance'[; and]

(g) Lessons continue to be learned. The matter has not ceased to be in the public interest simply because the hearings are now completed. The case is the subject of school and university learning.[20]

Section 122 of the Act

1. Section 122 is within pt 11 of the Act which is headed 'Interviewing suspects'.
2. The legislative history and purpose of pt 11 of the Act was set out by Martin CJ in ex parte West Australian Newspapers at paragraphs [16] and [54] - [55].
3. By s 120 and s 121 of the Act, the possession, playing, broadcasting, or copying any part of an audiovisual recording of an interview is restricted.
4. Against those restrictions, s 122 allows nominated courts to give certain directions.
5. Section 122 of the Act provides as follows:
   1. Recordings, court may give directions as to supply etc.

The Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court or Children's Court may give directions (with or without conditions) as to the supply, copying, editing, erasure, playing, or broadcast of an audiovisual recording of an interview.

1. It is plain that both the Mallard and Rochford interviews are audiovisual recordings of interviews within the applicable meanings in pt 11 of the Act.

1. These are principally to be found in the Court of Appeal's decision in ex parte West Australian Newspapers. This appears to be, with the primary decision which led to it, the first application considered by the Court pursuant to s 122 of the Act. There had been previous decisions which had considered earlier, different provisions.
2. At first instance, WA Newspapers (WAN) had applied to this Court for directions pursuant to s 122 of the Act to allow it to be supplied with portions of the Rochford interview which had been played during the CCC's public hearings.
3. While it appears that the Commissioner of Police formally opposed WAN's application, he conceded that there was no prejudice to any ongoing police investigations if the application were to be granted. The CCC did not object to the application.[21]
4. The primary judge held that WAN had to establish either that the interests of justice required the release of the video, or that exceptional circumstances justified the release.[22] The primary judge proceeded on the basis that to serve the interests of justice, the release would be necessary to avoid an injustice in a particular case. The primary judge did not accept that the 'interests of justice' were to be equated with the 'public interest'. And, he considered that furthering the broader public interest was not relevant to the exercise of the discretion conferred by s 122 of the Act. He dismissed the application.
5. In ex parte West Australian Newspapers, Martin CJ (with whom Newnes JA agreed) said that there were no express terms in s 122 or pt 11 which constrained the power of the Court to give directions in the manner suggested by the primary judge. The Chief Justice then stated:

In my view, having regard to the unconstrained terms in which the court is empowered to make directions pursuant to s 122, the court has a general discretion to make such directions to be exercised by taking into account all relevant facts, matters and circumstances. If a matter is logically relevant to the exercise of the discretion, its consideration is only excluded if that exclusion is to be implied by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Criminal Investigation Act (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (at [15])). There is nothing in the Criminal Investigation Act which would exclude from consideration relevant aspects of the public interest, or legitimate private interests, or indeed considerations such as the public interest in personal privacy on the one hand, or in freedom of communication on the other.[23]

... the discretion conferred by s 122 of the [Act] is to be approached without constraints artificially imposed by the imposition of restrictions upon the exercise of the discretion which are not found in the express terms of the statute. Rather, the discretion is to be exercised taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the subject matter, scope and evident legislative purpose of the statute. As I have indicated, prominent among the considerations to be taken into account will be the likely effect of the direction sought upon the administration of justice. If, on balance, it is properly concluded that the direction sought would impact adversely upon the administration of justice, powerful considerations indeed would be required to justify the exercise of the discretion in favour of access. When assessing the extent to which the direction sought might impact upon the administration of justice, regard will properly be taken of the desirability of encouraging voluntary participation in video recorded interviews. However, there will be circumstances in which it can safely be concluded that the making of a direction sought would not have any adverse impact upon the rate of participation in such interviews - such as, for example, when the direction is actively supported by the interviewee.[24]

1. Having decided that the primary judge had erred in the approach taken to the exercise of the discretion, Martin CJ then re‑exercised the discretion and stated:
   1. there was no pending investigation or trial which publication of the interview could compromise;
   2. the making of the directions sought would allow the CCC to consider allowing the disclosure if it considered it to be in the public interest;
   3. it was in the public interest for the CCC to have the capacity to release the material if it thought fit to do so;
   4. there were no countervailing considerations weighing against the exercise of making a direction; and
   5. it was entirely speculative to assert that the grant of the direction would discourage future participation by others in video records of interview (a matter which the Chief Justice had previously identified as being a purpose of pt 11 of the Act).[25]
2. The Chief Justice (and Newnes JA) then made orders under s 122 of the Act.
3. Both the Chief Justice and McLure JA (although dissenting in the result) agreed that a primary purpose of pt 11 was to encourage the use of audio‑visual recordings of interviews with suspects as it was in the best interests of the criminal justice system that suspects voluntarily participate in an interview which is the subject of an audio‑visual recording.[26]
4. McLure JA stated:
   1. Having regard to the nature and scope of the restrictions on dealings with an AVR of an interview with a suspect, the relevant statutory objects informing and limiting the scope of the discretionary power in s 122 are:

(1) to ensure there is no disclosure of an AVR that may prejudice the efficient and proper investigation or prosecution of indictable criminal offences in this State;

(2) to minimise the risk of prejudicing the voluntary participation of suspects in an interview that is the subject of an AVR;

(3) to protect the privacy of suspects unless disclosure is justified for the efficient and proper investigation and prosecution of indictable offences or other proper purpose. This is exemplified by s 124 which only permits an AVR of an interview with a suspect to be used for teaching purposes if the suspect has been convicted and all reasonable measures are taken to prevent the identification of the suspect from the AVR. The limitation applies notwithstanding the death of the suspect.

1. The public interests reflected in the legislative scheme will ordinarily only be outweighed if the proposed dealing with an AVR falls within the rationale for the non-discretionary exceptions (to further the efficient and proper investigation and prosecution of indictable offences) or a similar public purpose. However, if on the facts of the case the proposed dealing is consistent with the statutory objects (because, eg, there is no prejudice and the suspect consents), it may be permitted notwithstanding the dealing is not for a public purpose.[27]
2. While her Honour agreed with the majority that the primary judge had applied the wrong test, she was not satisfied that he had erred in the result.[28]
3. McLure JA concluded that the CCC's publication in its investigation of parts of the Rochford interview were for a different purpose than that sought by WAN. In her Honour's view, its prior publication did not outweigh the statutory objective of protecting the privacy of suspects and minimising the risk of prejudicing the voluntary participation of suspects in recorded interviews by investigative authorities.[29]

1. In this case, both Mr Mallard and Mr Rochford are deceased and so there can be no interference with any criminal investigation. Further, Mr Mallard had supported the release, previously, of the broadcast of his interview.
2. There is also nothing to suggest that any function of the CCC would be interfered with by making the orders sought.
3. I consider it of significance that the orders sought now are not new but, as a matter of substance, are renewals of applications previously made and directions previously given which have already put the two interviews into the public domain to some degree.
4. I consider the principles of 'open justice'[30] favour, in this case, the orders being made.
5. In this case, I further consider that each of the matters identified in the plaintiff's submissions (and quoted in paragraph [30] above) have real force.
6. Given the historical nature of the matters, I do not consider that there is any real prospect that the orders being made, and the plaintiff making use of the interviews in the manner foreshadowed, would realistically have any negative impact on suspects co‑operating in recorded interviews. In this case, at least, I do not share the concerns raised by McLure JA as identified above. That is not to disagree with her Honour generally on the point, but rather to note the different context in which the present application is brought compared with that before the Court of Appeal in 2008.
7. I do not consider that there are any countervailing considerations against making the orders sought.
8. For the above reasons, I made the orders substantially in the form sought.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Second Jones affidavit [3] - [4].

[2] Email on behalf of the Commissioner of Police dated 7 January 2026, part of 'CJ-9' at page 66 of the first Jones affidavit.

[3] Unreported Supreme Court of WA Library No 960505, 11 September 1996.

[4] Mallard v R [2003] WASCA 296; (2003) 28 WAR 1.

[5] Mallard v R [2005] HCA 68; (2005) 224 CLR 125.

[6] ex parte West Australian Newspapers Limited [2008] WASCA 209; (2008) 38 WAR 177 [2] ‑ [13] (ex parte West Australian Newspapers).

[7] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [12].

[8] First Jones affidavit [10] and Attachment 'CJ-4' at page 53.

[9] First Jones affidavit [9] and Attachment 'CJ-3' at pages 33 - 34.

[10] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [1].

[12] First Jones affidavit [12] and [13].

[14] First Jones affidavit [8] and Attachment 'CJ-2' at page 12.

[17] First Jones affidavit [5] and Attachment 'CJ-1' at page 11.

[19] First Jones affidavit [18] - [20].

[21] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [23].

[22] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [24].

[23] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [64].

[24] ex parte West Australian Newspaper [69].

[25] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [72] - [73].

[26] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [62] and [69] (Martin CJ); [81] - [82] (McLure JA).

[27] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [95] and [102].

[28] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [103].

[29] ex parte West Australian Newspapers [106].

[30] See for example Martin CJ, ex parte West Australian Newspapers [45].