R v Ferri

In the case of R v Ferri, the defence sought to subpoena the Commissioner of Police and the Police Complaints Authority for production of records related to complaints against Constables Kitto and Axon, who were Crown witnesses. The Police Complaints Authority provided records for 13 complaints related to Constable Kitto, but none regarding Constable Axon. The court reviewed the files and found that only two complaints were substantive enough to warrant consideration, while the rest were either dismissed or resolved through conciliation. The court was required to determine whether the defence was entitled to access these records under s 48(7)(c) of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985, which requires special reasons and a finding that the interests of justice cannot be adequately served without disclosure.

The court found that the defence's subpoenas amounted to a fishing expedition and did not meet the threshold for disclosure under the Act. The court noted that the legislation was intended to prevent defence counsel from using subpoenas to search for discreditable information in Police Complaints Authority files to attack police testimony in criminal trials. The court held that the defence's desire to trawl through the disciplinary records to attack Constable Kitto's credibility was a highly prejudicial strategy that would be unfair to him and contrary to the policy of the legislation. The court concluded that the material sought did not fit the description of evidence that could demonstrate a relevant propensity and would not serve the interests of justice to release details of complaints that were found to be of no substance or trivial.

The court declined to make an order for disclosure of the relevant files to the defence. The court held that the defence's attempt to access the records was not justified by special reasons and that the interests of justice could be adequately served without disclosure. The court found that the defence's strategy was akin to throwing a lot of mud in anticipation that some of it might stick, and that it would be grossly unfair to release details of complaints that were properly rejected by the Police Complaints Authority. The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting the confidentiality of police complaints records and preventing the use of such records for improper purposes in criminal trials.