EF v CD

The case of EF v CD involved a dispute between EF, who claimed to be a police informer, and CD, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions. EF sought to prevent CD from disclosing her identity and role as an informer to seven individuals who had been convicted based on information she provided. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the identity of EF as a police informer and her role in the convictions of the seven individuals were confidential, and if so, whether any exceptions to confidentiality, such as the public interest or iniquity defences, applied. The court also had to determine if the Director was required to provide specific details of EF's role to the convicted individuals to assist them in challenging their convictions.

The court considered the applicable legal principles and authorities, including the case of British American Tobacco Australia Limited v Gordon, which indicated that the public interest defence was not available in Australia. The court found that the assurances of confidentiality given to EF did not create an obligation of confidence that would prevent the Director from disclosing information to the convicted individuals that might assist them in challenging their convictions. The court concluded that the information in question was not confidential and that no defence of iniquity applied. Consequently, the court ruled that CD was not precluded from disclosing the information to the convicted individuals.

The final orders of the court were that some of the particulars of the proposed disclosures by CD were not, or appeared not to be, supported by the evidence. The court indicated that it would hear the parties on the appropriate orders to be made in the proceeding.