RICHARDS & MORRIS (IDENTIFICATION OF NOTIFIER)

In the matter of Richards & Morris, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for leave to ask questions of the father that might reveal the identity of, or lead to the identification of, notifiers to the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. All parties supported the grant of leave. The court noted that the identity of some notifiers was already known, and the Department had disclosed full names rather than redacting them from subpoenaed material. Some notifiers had also identified themselves in filed materials.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant leave for questions that could identify notifiers, applying the tests of "critical importance" and "compelling reasons in the public interest" as contained in section 186 of the relevant Queensland legislation, and considering section 69ZW(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court had to determine if these statutory prohibitions could be overcome, thereby enabling the exercise of discretion in the interests of justice. The court also considered allegations that the father, his family, or others at his behest had made numerous notifications with the intention of undermining the mother.

Tree J reasoned that the allegations of vexatious notifications were a matter of critical importance. The court was satisfied that, in the collective circumstances of the case, there were compelling reasons in the public interest to investigate whether the father or his associates were the notifiers. The court considered whether to exercise its discretion and concluded that the interests of justice weighed in favour of granting leave. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that to the extent disclosure might reveal that the father or his associates made many of the notifications, a failure to permit such inquiry would prejudice the proper administration of justice in the proceedings.