The Australian Capital Territory v Deacon

In the case of The Australian Capital Territory v Deacon, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which dealt with an application for several orders and a declaration by the respondent. The respondent had commenced proceedings seeking damages for an injury sustained at work, and the applicant denied any breach of duty. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant’s actions in attempting to obtain statements from hospital employees constituted contempt of court, and if so, whether any statutory provisions could justify such actions. The applicant claimed that certain statutory provisions precluded hospital employees from giving statements to the respondent’s solicitors.

The Full Court considered whether the applicant's actions amounted to contempt of court and whether any statutory provisions justified the applicant's conduct. The court held that the applicant's actions would constitute an intentional attempt to dissuade potential witnesses from giving truthful evidence and would be a contempt unless excused or sanctioned by an express legal rule. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions but found that nothing in the legislation operated to make it unlawful for any public officer in authority to dissuade any witness from giving information to a proper relevant authority or to refuse to give such information. The court also found it unnecessary to decide whether the respondent's solicitors were entitled to go onto the hospital premises or speak to potential witnesses at the hospital for the purpose of the respondent's case.

The Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs of the application. This decision reinforces the principle that actions taken to prevent witnesses from giving truthful evidence can constitute contempt of court, and statutory provisions do not necessarily justify such actions.