R.v. FANDAKIS [2002] NSWCCA 5

R.v. FANDAKIS [2002] NSWCCA 5

The question whether the person recorded in one notebook entry was the same as the person recorded in another was likely to elicit an answer tending to identify a police informer, and there was no competing interest capable of outweighing the public interest in confidentiality. The magistrate therefore erred in...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal by the Attorney General Under S.5 F Criminal Appeal Act Against Interlocutory Judgments or Orders Made During Committal Proceedings in the Local Court / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['public Interest Immunity' 'police Informer Identity' 'exclusion of Evidence of Matters of State' 'adjournment to Substantiate Immunity Claim' 'adjournment to Seek Appellate Review of Ruling']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['public Interest Immunity' 'police Informer Identity' 'exclusion of Evidence of Matters of State' 'adjournment to Substantiate Immunity Claim' 'adjournment to Seek Appellate Review of Ruling']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal by the Attorney General Under S.5 F Criminal Appeal Act Against Interlocutory Judgments or Orders Made During Committal Proceedings in the Local Court / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate erred in allowing a question and requiring an answer where the answer was likely to facilitate identification of a police informer.' 'Whether the magistrate erred in refusing an adjournment to allow further material to be put before the Local Court in support of a public interest immunity claim.' 'Whether the magistrate erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the ruling to be reviewed.' 'Whether affidavit or other formal evidence was essential to substantiate a claim under s 130 Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The question whether the person recorded in one notebook entry was the same as the person recorded in another was likely to elicit an answer tending to identify a police informer, and there was no competing interest capable of outweighing the public interest in confidentiality. The magistrate therefore erred in requiring the answer, in refusing a short adjournment to allow the Commissioner to provide further material, and in refusing an adjournment to allow review of the ruling.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' 'Set aside the orders appealed from and order in lieu that the witness Jim Zoras be not required in the proceedings below to testify whether or not the person whose personal details are recorded on page 20 of his police notebook F202195 (some of which details are masked by black ink in a...