Susskind and Dean

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Susskind (Applicant) and Ms Dean (Respondent) were involved in proceedings concerning children. The Director-General of the Department of Education and Training intervened. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) had issued a subpoena to the Director-General for documents, which were produced in both unredacted and redacted forms. The central dispute concerned whether the ICL should be permitted to inspect only the redacted documents, or if the unredacted version should also be made available.

The court was required to determine whether the identity of a notifier, as protected by section 186(3) of the *Child Protection Act 1999* (Qld), should be disclosed to the ICL. Specifically, the court had to consider the conditions under which leave could be granted for such disclosure, namely that the evidence must be of "critical importance in the proceeding" and that there must be a "compelling reason in the public interest for disclosure." The court also considered the public interest in protecting the identity of notifiers and the interests of justice in ensuring all relevant evidence is available for determination of the children's best interests.

Justice Murphy reasoned that while the unredacted document should not be inspected due to the strong public interest in protecting notifiers, the redacted document presented different issues. Applying section 186(4) of the *Child Protection Act*, the court found that it could not confidently determine whether the evidence was of critical importance or if there was a compelling public interest for disclosure based on the material before it. Therefore, a balance was struck by allowing the ICL to inspect the redacted document under a strict undertaking of confidentiality. The court also ordered that if the ICL considered the evidence in the redacted document should be tendered at trial, notice must be given to the Director-General, who would then have an opportunity to be heard.

The court ordered that the Independent Children’s Lawyer be permitted to inspect only the redacted document, subject to an undertaking of confidentiality. Leave was granted for the Director-General to uplift certain documents. The matter was adjourned for further directions, and the ICL was granted leave to publish certain documents relevant to the proceedings, subject to specific conditions and notice requirements. The publication of the judgment under the pseudonym Susskind & Dean was approved.