Legal | Modern Interpretation of a ?public Interest Immunity? in ...

The modern interpretation of the doctrine of public interest immunity is to be viewed contextually with the advent of Freedom of Information legislation and other Acts evidencing a trend toward increasing open government in Australia.? The law started refusing to accept government claims of ?absolute immunity? from disclosure in a curial environment. Previously, documents belonging to a class which, on grounds of public interest, must as a class be withheld from production? could be protected from disclosure ? the court?s only function prior to the modern statement of the law was to recognise and pronounce that the documents belonged to such a class.

In the leading case of Sankey v Whitlam and Others ((1978) 142 CLR 1), the High Court considered at length the modern Australian application of the doctrine of public interest immunity.

The general rule is that the court will not order the production of a document, although relevant and otherwise admissible, if it would be injurious to the public interest to disclose it. However the public interest has two aspects which may conflict. These were described by Lord Reid in Conway v Rimmer ([1968] AC 910, 94), as follows:

?There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of certain documents, and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done.?

It was held that the relevant principles applied equally to viva voce evidence as well as the production of documents, though the facts of that case involved the latter.

Of special significance to the present discussion,

It is in all cases the duty of the court, and not the privilege of the executive government, to decide whether a document will be produced or may be withheld. The court must decide which aspect of the public interest predominates, or in other words whether the public interest which requires that the document should not be produced outweighs the public interest that a court of justice in performing its functions should not be denied access to relevant evidence. In some cases, therefore, the court must weigh the one competing aspect of the public interest against the other, and decide where the balance lies.

This statement of the relevant principles displaced the earlier principles permitting blanket claims for immunity from disclosure based upon the class of documents rather than individual contents. It also removed any suggestion that a claim by the executive was absolute, and unsuitable for challenge or for assessment by the court.

Nonetheless, the balancing exercise to be undertaken by the court recognised that, inherently, government at a high level cannot function without some degree of secrecy. The public interest therefore requires that some protection be afforded by the law to documents of that kind. This factor was deserving of weight, reflected in the balancing exercise; the relevant government agency would be entitled to be heard prior to any determination of a claim for immunity, and there was an entitlement for that agency to appeal if aggrieved by a decision to order production of documents. Likewise, however, ?the proper administration of justice, of prime importance in the national interest, requires that evidence necessary if justice is to be done should be freely available to those who litigate in our courts.? Mason J of the High Court in Sankey v Whitlam expressed that limb of the public interest as being ?in the administration of justice in the administration of justice that requires that the parties be given a fair trial on all the relevant and material evidence.? His Honour was the only member of the court to refer explicitly to trial fairness in considering this public interest, and the citation in support of the proposition, Conway v Rimmer, does not speak of trial fairness, only the fair administration of justice.

The balancing exercise to be undertaken by the court affords recognition to the observation by Gibbs A-CJ (as he then was) as to the other competing public interest ? avoiding an injustice to an accused person whose liberty was at stake in a criminal trial, where the documents were necessary to support their defence. In those circumstances the documents must be disclosed. This is not to say that there is not a balancing process to be undertaken, instead, the public interest in preventing an innocent person from being convicted of a crime is so powerful that it outweighs the countervailing public interest.

Article Source:?http://www.bharatbhasha.net
Article Url: http://www.bharatbhasha.net/legal.php/361845

Article Added on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
LD

Other Articles by Martine Marich

?How do Australian Courts Treat Sensitive Investigative Information in Terrorism Cases The Australian common law protects national security information from disclosure in a number of ways ? including the application of the exclusionary evidentiary principle of public interest immunity, requiring the balancing of the public interest in restricting harm to the nation or the public service by disclosing the information, with the public interest in requiring all relevant information to be adduced (see Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, 38 per Gibbs A-CJ of the High Court of... ?Protection of Sensitive Information in Australian Criminal Trials In the ordinary course, the State charges the accused and then provides all material evidence (or a summary of that evidence) in their possession for or against the accused. The prosecutor?s duty of disclosure, arising out of the Crown?s obligation to conduct a criminal trial with fairness? is owed to the court rather than to the accused, but is fundamental to the right of a fair trial, and consistent with the international human rights principle of ?equality of arms.? The duty is generally... ?Terrorism Offences in Australian Law a Criminal Lawyer s Guide The context in which the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) was created is important to understanding its application to federal criminal proceedings. This Act is one of over thirty-five that have been passed by federal Parliament in the legislative response to the threats posed by terrorist organisations since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. A full list may be accessed from Parliamentary Library of the Parliament...

Source: http://www.bharatbhasha.net/legal.php/361845

the line bobby brown arrested yahoo.com/mail jennifer lawrence josh hutcherson the happening black panthers