When assessing a claim to public interest immunity over the identity of a police informer, the court must assess the significance of the informer's identity to the accused's defence and the need for disclosure at the particular stage of proceedings — mere relevance of the information to the defence is insufficient. The potential consequences to the informer if identity is disclosed are irrelevant to the balancing exercise. Where the person producing documents on subpoena and the person claiming immunity are different entities, the common law rather than Part 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995 governs the immunity claim.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.