Judgment Summary

Supreme Court
New South Wales

Atkins v Attorney General of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1412

McCallum J

Today the Supreme Court dismissed proceedings brought by Mr Michael Atkins seeking
review of decisions of the coroner pursuant to which he is required to give evidence in
coronial proceedings following his acquittal of the murder and manslaughter of Mr Matthew
Leveson.
Mr Leveson disappeared on 23 September 2007 when he was aged 20 years. His body
has never been found. At the time of his disappearance, Mr Leveson was living in a de
facto relationship with Michael Atkins, who was then aged 44 years. So far as is known, Mr
Atkins was the last person to see Mr Leveson alive.
A coronial inquest concerning Mr Levesons death or suspected death, commenced in
2008, was suspended because Mr Atkins had been charged with Mr Levesons murder.
The suspension of the inquest was mandatory in that circumstance. Mr Atkins was
subsequently acquitted at trial by a majority verdict.
In late 2015, Mr Atkins was served with a subpoena to give evidence as a witness in
ongoing coronial proceedings concerning the death of Mr Leveson. He objected to giving
evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination.
On 20 May 2016, the coroner determined to require Mr Atkins to give evidence with the
protection of a certificate under s 61 of the Coroners Act 2009 (NSW), the effect of which is
that any evidence he gives (including any admissions he may make) and any evidence
obtained as a consequence of his evidence would not be admissible against him in any
further criminal proceedings.
Mr Atkins applied to the Supreme Court to have the coroners decision requiring him to give
evidence quashed. The application contended that the inquest was not validly convened
owing to a misapprehension of jurisdiction by the State Coroner. The Supreme Court held
that the State Coroner did not misapprehend his jurisdiction and that the Deputy State
Coroner has authority to hold the inquest in which Mr Atkins is required to give evidence.

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the
judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Courts judgment.