Chief Commissioner of Police v CrupiCitation:[2024] HCA 34Before:Gageler CJ, Edelman, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Sep 2024Case Number:M83/2023Read more
The court held that the primary judge did not comply with the obligation to give adequate reasons by failing to disclose the process required by s 130(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: First Respondent
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment against the applicant
- Legal Topics
- Public Interest Immunity, Adequacy of Reasons, Disclosure of Documents, Informer Protection
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 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Applicant
Applicant
First Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the primary judge complied with the obligation to give adequate reasons under s 130 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) when refusing disclosure of documents concerning an informer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the primary judge did not comply with the obligation to give adequate reasons by failing to disclose the process required by s 130(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
Court Disposition
Judgment against the applicant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment