SUSSKIND & DEAN (NO.2)

In *Susskind & Dean (No. 2)*, heard before Tree J, the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought leave to lead evidence from a proposed witness in proceedings concerning child protection. The core of the dispute revolved around the admissibility of this evidence, particularly in light of potential identification of a notifier.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant leave under section 186(3) of the Child Protection Act for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to adduce evidence from a specific witness. This determination required the court to consider the potential impact of the proposed evidence, specifically whether it would directly or intentionally identify a notifier, which could have implications for the protection of individuals who report child welfare concerns.

Tree J granted the Independent Children’s Lawyer leave to lead the evidence from the proposed witness. However, this leave was made conditional. The condition stipulated that no evidence from the witness should have the direct or intended effect of identifying a notifier, thereby balancing the need to present relevant evidence with the imperative to protect the confidentiality of those who report concerns under the Act.