Saffari v State of Western Australia

In the case of Saffari v State of Western Australia, the appellant, Saffari, brought an action against the State of Western Australia and the Commissioner of Police, alleging negligence in the provision of inaccurate information about his criminal record to Commonwealth authorities. Saffari argued that the Commissioner of Police should not be protected by statutory immunity under s 137(3) of the Police Act 1892 (WA) because his actions were voluntary rather than mandated. The central legal issues were whether s 137(3) of the Police Act properly construed applied to exclude a cause of action against the Commissioner of Police and whether the Commissioner of Police was a necessary party to the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments made by Saffari regarding the interpretation of s 137(3) of the Police Act, which provides immunity for the Commissioner of Police from actions in tort unless there was corruption or malice. The Court noted that the High Court decisions in Board of Fire Commissioners (NSW) v Ardouin and Coco v The Queen supported a jealous interpretation of immunity provisions. The Court of Appeal concluded that s 137(3) was engaged and conferred immunity on the Commissioner of Police. Consequently, the Commissioner of Police was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the proceedings. The primary judge's decision to order the removal of the Commissioner of Police as a party was upheld as appropriate, given that no judgment could be entered against the Commissioner of Police under s 137(3).

The Court of Appeal's final orders were that the appeal against the primary judge's decision to remove the Commissioner of Police as a party was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.