Gorman v McKnight (No 2)

Gorman v McKnight (No 2) concerned an application by the appellants to amend the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the Court's earlier judgment, where reasons for decision had included a transcript of a recording that had been authorised under the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW) and tendered in open court. The appellants sought to amend these reasons, contending that the publication of the transcript was contrary to section 40 of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the inclusion and publication of the transcript of the authorised recording within the Court's reasons for judgment constituted a contravention of section 40 of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW). This required the Court to consider the scope and application of section 40 in circumstances where evidence obtained under the Act had been admitted and published in open court without any specific non-publication or suppression orders being in place.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, reasoning that section 40 of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW) prohibits the disclosure of information obtained under a surveillance device warrant, but this prohibition is subject to exceptions. Crucially, the Court found that the transcript in question had been tendered in open court and was not subject to any non-publication or suppression order. In such circumstances, the publication of the transcript within the Court's reasons for judgment did not contravene section 40. The Court applied the principle that evidence admitted and published in open court, without restriction, can be included in the Court's reasons.

Consequently, the appellants’ notice of motion dated 15 January 2021 was dismissed.