White v South Australia

The appeal in White v South Australia was brought by the appellants, who were defendants at trial, against an order made by a single Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondents, who were plaintiffs at trial, sought the discovery of certain documents that the appellants claimed were protected by immunity from production under s 48(7) of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 (SA). The Master of the Supreme Court initially upheld the claim of immunity, but the single Judge later allowed an appeal against the Master’s order. The appellants now appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against the Judge’s order.

The legal issues before the court were whether s 48(2) and s 48(7) of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 (SA) could properly support the claim of immunity from production of the contested documents. These sections create secrecy requirements that prohibit the disclosure of documents of the kind sought by the respondents. The statute contemplates that only the Police Complaints Authority or the police officer in command of the Internal Investigation Branch may authorise the production of documents. The court also considered s 48(4) and s 48(7) of the Act, which require the disclosure of documents if there are "special reasons" for doing so and that the interests of justice cannot be served except by an order for production. The forensic disadvantage for the respondents if the documents were not produced was also considered.

The Full Court found that "special reasons" did exist for the disclosure of the documents, but in all the circumstances of the case, these reasons were not sufficient to require the Court to order production. The court held that the terms of s 48 of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 could be relied on to prevent inspection of the contested documents. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the single Judge requiring disclosure of the contested documents was set aside. The Full Court substituted an order dismissing the appeal against the Master’s decision refusing to order production of the contested documents.