Sands v The State of South Australia (No 2)

Sands v The State of South Australia (No 2) involves an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, and breaches of statutory duty against the State of South Australia. The plaintiff, who was investigated for the murder of Corinna Marr, claims that police statements during the investigation were defamatory. The defendant sought a permanent stay of proceedings on the basis of public interest immunity, arguing that the proceedings would require the disclosure of privileged information related to the murder investigation and police policies and methodologies. The court considered whether the information was protected by public interest immunity, whether the new allegations substantially altered the claim, and whether the defendant could plead its defence without disclosing privileged information.

The court held that the information was protected by public interest immunity and should not be disclosed. The defendant could plead its defence of justification to the new defamatory imputations, which were refinements or conclusions of the original imputations. The court found that the pleadings would not necessitate the revelation of information protected by public interest immunity. However, the defendant could not plead to the misfeasance and breach of statutory duty claims as that would require disclosing privileged information. The court granted a stay of the proceedings if the misfeasance claim was maintained by the plaintiff.

The court reasoned that the new imputations were a subtle variation on what was already implicit, that the plaintiff was the culprit. The defendant should be able to plead to the new imputations in the same way it had already done in the earlier defence. The court also noted that much of what was included in the defendant's confidential draft pleadings, which only the court had read, was considered potential evidence and not merely statements of material facts. Therefore, the court found that the defendant should be able to plead to the new imputations without revealing privileged information. However, the court granted a stay of the proceedings if the misfeasance claim was maintained by the plaintiff.