SD v New South Wales Crime Commission

The applicant, referred to as SD, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision concerning their obligation to answer questions at a hearing before the New South Wales Crime Commission. The core of the dispute involved whether SD had a "reasonable excuse" for refusing to answer certain questions, particularly in light of a non-publication direction issued under section 13(9) of the *New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985* (NSW).

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the non-publication direction, which precluded disclosure to the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, was adequate to protect SD's interests, and whether SD possessed a "reasonable excuse" under section 18(2) of the Act for not answering questions. The Court also considered the power to vary such directions and whether the existing direction was sufficient to prevent prejudice to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the non-publication direction, while preventing disclosure to law enforcement agencies, did not create a "reasonable excuse" for refusing to answer questions posed by the Crime Commission. The judges determined that the purpose of the Act was to facilitate investigations, and the statutory framework provided mechanisms for protection where necessary. They found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for not answering the questions, and that the existing direction was not inadequate in a way that would justify a refusal to provide evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision. The Court also made orders prohibiting the publication of the applicant's name and any information tending to reveal their identity, granted leave to appeal, directed that an amended draft notice of appeal stand as the formal notice, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.