Sands v State of South Australia

Sands v State of South Australia is a defamation case brought against the State of South Australia by the plaintiff, who claims that certain publications by the South Australia Police (SAPOL) and The Advertiser led to defamatory imputations being made against him. The plaintiff argues that SAPOL leaked documents related to an application under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1998 (SA) to The Advertiser, which then published articles based on these leaks. The plaintiff further contends that SAPOL made defamatory statements during a media release and press conference. The legal issues in this case included whether SAPOL leaked the documents, whether the plaintiff was identified in the media release and press conference, and if the imputations were conveyed. Additionally, the court had to decide whether SAPOL could rely on the defence of absolute or qualified privilege, if the police acted with malice, and if the imputations were justified.

The court held that the plaintiff did not prove that SAPOL leaked the documents to The Advertiser. However, the plaintiff was identified in the media release and press conference by virtue of extrinsic facts, as the hearing of the application under the Forensic Procedures Act made it known to the plaintiff's family, friends, and work colleagues that he was a suspect. The court found that the words of the media release and press conference conveyed some of the pleaded imputations but not others. The court rejected the defence of absolute privilege, as the publications were not made in the execution of duties following an implied request by the media. The defence of qualified privilege was also rejected, as the statements in the media release and press conference were not required to be made at the time they were and exceeded what was reasonably necessary to discharge the duty. The court found that the defence of justification was made out, as the victim's husband and others were investigated and discounted after proper investigation.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim in breach of statutory duty, stating that the Forensic Procedures Act does not give rise to a civil cause of action. The court further held that even if the defendant breached the confidentiality provisions of the Act, the plaintiff did not suffer loss. Additionally, the court found that no duty of care can be imposed on the police that would lead to conflicting duties and incoherence with the law of defamation. The tort of privacy is not recognised in Australian law, and the information published by the police was not in the nature of material that could be expected to be kept confidential. Lastly, the court held that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) does not give rise to a civil cause of action, as communication of lawfully intercepted information in the context of the application under the Forensic Procedures Act was authorised by the TIA Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims in defamation, breach of statutory duty, and breach of privacy, finding that the defence of justification was made out and that the plaintiff had lied in relation to central and peripheral issues.