R v Sun [2021] NSWDC 834

R v Sun [2021] NSWDC 834

Access to the information and documents sought was refused because, having considered the open and confidential material, the Court found that the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality outweighed the public interest in admitting or disclosing the material. The Court was persuaded that s 130(4)(c) and (e) Evidence Act 1995 applied, including risks of prejudice to prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences and disclosure or ascertainment of a confidential source. The possible forensic use of the material by the accused did not justify disclosure in light of the public interest immunity claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / During Trial; Ruling on Exclusion of Evidence and Public Interest Immunity
Outcome
Access declined; public interest immunity claim maintained.
Legal Topics
['public Interest Immunity' 'controlled Operations' 'disclosure' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'hearsay in Voir Dire Proceedings' 'matters of State Under S 130 Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['public Interest Immunity' 'controlled Operations' 'disclosure' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'hearsay in Voir Dire Proceedings' 'matters of State Under S 130 Evidence Act 1995']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Procedural Ruling / During Trial; Ruling on Exclusion of Evidence and Public Interest Immunity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused could rely on hearsay material under s 75 Evidence Act 1995 in a voir dire concerning exclusion of evidence under s 138 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether information or documents concerning Witness A, Louise, their identities, roles, benefits, motivations or unrelated dealings with police should be disclosed or adduced despite the claim of public interest immunity.' 'Whether, under s 130 Evidence Act 1995, the public interest in admitting or disclosing the information was outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality.']

Ratio Decidendi

Access to the information and documents sought was refused because, having considered the open and confidential material, the Court found that the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality outweighed the public interest in admitting or disclosing the material. The Court was persuaded that s 130(4)(c) and (e) Evidence Act 1995 applied, including risks of prejudice to prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences and disclosure or ascertainment of a confidential source. The possible forensic use of the material by the accused did not justify disclosure in light of the public interest immunity claim.

Court Disposition

Access declined; public interest immunity claim maintained.

Orders

  • ['Decline to grant access to information in the nature of that sought expressly, or by implication, and over which the Crown, in right of the State of New South Wales, claimed public interest immunity on behalf of the Commissioner of Police.']