SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.
BOYLE v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)
[2024] SASCA 73
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
The Honourable Justice Lovell, the Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice David)
19 June 2024
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - JURISDICTION
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACT - REMEDIAL OR BENEFICIAL ACTS OR PROVISIONS
- The appellant was employed at the Australian Taxation Office ("ATO") and lodged a public interest disclosure ("PID") under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) ("the Act").
- The appellant allegedly committed 24 criminal acts in order to obtain evidence to support the information contained in his PID. After lodging his PID, the appellant uploaded some of the material he had obtained to a ProtonMail account. His lawyer, Mr Findlay, was given the ability to access the ProtonMail server account but agreed with the appellant that he would not do so until the appellant permitted it.
- The appellant was charged with 24 criminal offences, namely, using his mobile phone to take photographs of taxpayer information (counts 1–2 and 11–15); covertly recording conversations with ATO colleagues (counts 3–6 and 8–10); and uploading photographs of taxpayer information to a ProtonMail server account (counts 16–24).
- The main issues before the primary Judge were whether the alleged unlawful anterior acts committed by the appellant attracted the immunity from criminal liability contained within s 10(1)(a) of the Act, and whether the appellant by uploading material to the ProtonMail server account and potentially giving his lawyer access, amounted to a "legal practitioner disclosure", thus attracting the immunity.
On Appeal from DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (HER HONOUR JUDGE KUDELKA) CIV-22-005551
Appellant: RICHARD DAVID BOYLECounsel: MR S MILLSTEED KC WITH MS L GAVRANICH - Solicitor: BARBARO THILTHORPE LAWYERS
Respondent: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)Counsel: MR N ROBINSON KC WITH MR S GINSBOURG - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)
Interested Party: THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CENTRE LIMITEDCounsel: MR P HERZFELD SC WITH MS H RYAN - Solicitor: JOHNSON WINTER SLATTERY
Hearing Date/s: 09/08/2023
File No/s: CIV-23-004375
A
