R v Fandakis

[2002] NSWCCA 5

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Public interest immunity
3. › Exclusion of evidence of matters of state
4. › Identity of police informer
5. › Whether question likely to facilitate identification of informer properly allowed
6. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 130
1. Evidence
2. › Public interest immunity
3. › Exclusion of evidence of matters of state
4. › Manner of substantiating claim
5. › Whether affidavit evidence essential
6. › Whether court may inform itself in any way it thinks fit
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 130(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Committal proceedings
3. › Adjournment
4. › Whether refusal of adjournment to allow public interest immunity claim to be substantiated was proper
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Committal proceedings
3. › Adjournment
4. › Whether refusal of adjournment to allow interlocutory ruling on public interest immunity to be tested on appeal was proper

Quick Take

Where a claim of public interest immunity is raised to protect the identity of a police informer, the court is duty bound to grant an adjournment to allow the claimant to adduce further evidence in support, and to defer enforcement of any adverse ruling to allow it to be tested on appeal. Affidavit evidence is not essential to substantiate such a claim; s 130(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 permits the court to inform itself in any way it thinks fit. Where the identity of a police informer is at stake, the public interest in preserving confidentiality outweighs the interest in admitting the evidence unless disclosure could help show the accused is not guilty.