Justin v Commissioner of Police

The applicant, Mr Justin, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision concerning the interpretation of regulation 27 of the Police Regulations 1982 (South Australia). The dispute arose when Mr Justin, a police officer, was questioned about alleged criminal offences, including forgery and supplying amphetamines. After declining to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination and being informed that criminal charges would be laid, he was subsequently directed under regulation 27(1)(a) to answer questions related to these same alleged criminal matters during a disciplinary investigation. His refusal to answer these specific questions formed the basis of a charge against him under the regulation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether regulation 27(1)(a) validly abrogated the common law privilege against self-incrimination in the circumstances presented. Specifically, the applicant argued that the decision of the High Court in *Police Service Board v Morris* was distinguishable from the present case. The core of the special leave application was to determine if the principle established in *Morris*, which concerned disciplinary matters, extended to situations where an officer is directed to answer questions about alleged breaches of the general criminal law, even after being informed that criminal charges are contemplated or will be laid.

The applicant contended that *Morris* was confined to purely disciplinary matters that did not involve breaches of the criminal law. He argued that the regulation, as interpreted in *Morris*, did not extend to compelling admissions regarding criminal conduct. Therefore, the applicant submitted that the ambit of *Morris* did not cover the circumstances of his case, where the questions directed under the regulation were directly related to alleged criminal offences. The Court was required to consider the proper construction of regulation 27(1)(a) and whether, on that construction, it applied to the facts of the present case, particularly in light of the distinction between disciplinary and criminal matters.