Horsman v Commissioner of Police

In the case of Horsman v Commissioner of Police, the applicant, Ronald James Horsman, sought an order for the supply of a videotaped interview of his son, Dirk Matthew Horsman, for private purposes. Dirk had been interviewed by police officers on 24 May 2001, and the interview was recorded on videotape. Tragically, Dirk died in a motor vehicle accident three days later. The applicant sought a copy of the videotape for sentimental reasons, as it was the only audio-visual record of his son. The Commissioner of Police did not object to the order sought and did not wish to be heard on the application.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the provisions of the Criminal Code (WA) Chapter LXA, specifically section 570F, which allows the court to give directions regarding the supply, copying, editing, erasure, playing, or broadcast of a videotape. The applicant argued that the court had jurisdiction to make the order sought under section 570F, and that it should exercise its discretion to grant the application in the interests of justice. The Commissioner of Police did not oppose the application but raised concerns about the general restrictions on the supply of videotaped records of interview under Chapter LXA.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to make the order sought under section 570F, as established in the case of Plutonic Operations Ltd v Done. However, the court held that the jurisdiction to make directions should be exercised for the interests of justice. The private interests of the applicant, though understandable, did not warrant the exercise of the court's discretion under section 570F. Therefore, the application was refused.

The court's decision was based on the general restrictions on the supply of videotaped records of interview under Chapter LXA, which are in place to protect the privacy and interests of those who give interviews to police officers. The court held that it would be an exceptional case where the court would exercise its discretion under section 570F other than to advance the interests of justice. In this case, the private interests of the applicant did not meet the threshold for the exercise of the court's discretion.