In the matter of an application by the Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic)

The Chief Commissioner of Police (Victoria) sought to appeal orders made by a trial judge that prohibited, for a limited time, the publication of methods and material used by police in murder investigations. The Chief Commissioner's primary objective was to obtain indefinite orders prohibiting the publication of evidence that would identify police methods, which he argued were crucial for solving unsolved serious crimes and for the safety of undercover agents. The matter came before the High Court of Australia following decisions by the Court of Appeal of Victoria.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the trial judge's orders was barred by section 17A(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), and if an appeal lay, whether it was as of right or only by leave. The Chief Commissioner also contended that the Court of Appeal had denied him procedural fairness by deciding substantive issues without providing him with a sufficient opportunity to present argument, particularly in light of additional written submissions and affidavit evidence filed after the conclusion of oral argument. The High Court was also required to consider the admissibility of this additional evidence and the proper procedure for appellate courts.

The High Court noted that the orders made at first instance were not final determinations of rights or obligations, as their operation was extended by single judges to allow the Chief Commissioner to pursue his appeals. The Court of Appeal, while not definitively deciding whether section 17A(3) barred an appeal, assumed jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the substantive issues. The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the Chief Commissioner's appeal, concluding that there was no sufficient basis for indefinitely suppressing the matters in question, citing the principle of open justice, practical difficulties with duration and effectiveness, and the likely ineffectiveness of such orders in preventing dissemination among those who might pose a risk.

The High Court dismissed the Chief Commissioner's applications for special leave to appeal and appeals, ordering the Chief Commissioner to pay the intervener's costs in each instance. The Court indicated that the Chief Commissioner's attempt to secure general orders for indefinite prohibition on publication of evidence identifying police methods was rejected.