Ryan v State of Victoria

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0137

MARK RYAN	Appellant
v
STATE OF VICTORIA	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TATE, SANTAMARIA and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 June 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 December 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 353
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2014] VCC 1692 (Judge Kings)

---

EVIDENCE – Discovery – Public interest immunity – Whether Victoria Police internal documents on operational tactics of Mounted Branch covered by immunity – Whether documents relate to ‘matters of state’ – Whether disclosure would prejudice the proper functioning of Victoria Police Mounted Branch – Relevance and importance to proceeding –Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171, Young v Quin (1985) 4 FCR 483, Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667, Eastman v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 9, R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681, Victoria v Seal Rocks Victoria (Australia) Pty Ltd (2001) 3 VR 1, Skrijel v Mengler [2003] VSC 137, Royal Women’s Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (2006) 15 VR 22, New South Wales v Public Transport Ticketing [2011] NSWCA 60, Ahmet v Chief Commissioner of Police [2014] VSCA 265, Dupont & Chief Commissioner of Police [2015] FamCAFC 64, discussed – Evidence Act 2008 ss 130 and 131A.

EVIDENCE – Public interest immunity – Whether duty of legal practitioners to use the information only for the proper conduct of the proceeding would be sufficient protection – Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280, Seymour vPrice [1998] FCA 1224, considered – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G M Hughan with Ms L J Martin	Flemington & Kensington Community Legal Centre
For the Respondent	Mr S A O’Meara QC with Mr L T Brown	Victorian Government Solicitor

TATE JA:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary ..............................................................................	2
Protest at Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre ……………………..	3
The pleadings ……………...……………………………………………………….	4
The documents in dispute …...................................................................................	7
The statutory scheme ..............................................................................................	9
The judge’s reasons ..................................................................................................	12
The grounds of appeal .............................................................................................	19
Notice of contention ................................................................................................	20
Public interest immunity ……..…………………………………………………..	21
(1)       Public interest immunity at common law ……..…………………..	21
(2)       Relationship between common law and statutory immunity ……...	23
(3)       Public interest immunity claims relating to police methodology  …	27
(4)       Recent Victorian jurisprudence on public interest immunity …….	36
Analysis ………………………………………………………….…………………	38
(1)       Ground 1 —would disclosure prejudice the government of the State (s 130(4)(f))?……………………………….………………...	39
(2)       Grounds 2 and 3  —relevance and importance to proceeding (s 130(5)(a) and 130(5)(c))  ….……………………………………	52
(3)       Ground 4 and 5 — likely effect of access and restrictions on release (s 130(5)(d)) …………………………………….............................	60
(4)       Notice of contention —does common law public interest immunity apply? ……………………………………………………………...	70
Conclusion on the appeal ………………………………………………………...	70