//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2018] VSC 27
Supreme Court of Victoria
2018-02-06
Beale J
Original judgment source is linked above.
EVIDENCE - Public interest immunity - Accused is charged with murder - Defence of self-defence - Matters of State - Evidence Act 2008 ss 130, 130A.
1 On 21 December 2017, I published my ruling in relation to certain public interest immunity ('PII') claims made by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police and by the Commonwealth.
One document - over which the AFP claims PII in its entirety - has not been provided to me for inspection. Accordingly, while I am satisfied on the material that has been provided that the information contained in that document is likely to relate to a 'matter of state', I am not yet in a position to undertake the balancing exercise required by s 130(5) of the Act. Pursuant to s 130 (3) of the Act, I direct that the document in question, and any confidential supporting material, be provided to my associate at midday on Monday 29 January 2018. I will provide my ruling in respect of that document as soon as possible thereafter.
3 The document in question - a draft Intelligence Bulletin headed 'Fatal Shooting of Rahat Khan on 12 July 2016' and dated 27 July 2016 ('the document') - was duly provided to me in accordance with my direction, along with a confidential affidavit and a confidential submission by counsel for the Commonwealth.
4 I am satisfied on the confidential material provided to me that the document relates to a matter of state,[2] but, in relation to the information contained in the last three paragraphs on page 3 of the document ('the information'),[3] I am not satisfied that the public interest in the disclosure of the information to the defence is outweighed by the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of that information. In my view, the information could be of significant assistance to the defence and its disclosure is not likely to significantly undermine the competing public interest for which the Commonwealth contends.
5 I will not go into any more detail in this ruling about the nature of the information in case the Commonwealth wishes to challenge this ruling.
6 As for the balance of the document, I am satisfied that the PII claim should be upheld and that it is appropriate for me to direct, pursuant to s 130 (2) of the Evidence Act 2008, that it not be disclosed.
[1] R v Yucel (Ruling No 1) [2017] VSC 807.
[2] I will accede to the Commonwealth's request not to identify which paragraphs of s 130(4) of the Evidence Act 2008 are enlivened.
[3] For clarity's sake, the first of these paragraphs commences with the word "Around" and the last paragraph concludes with the word "Yucel". The information to be disclosed pursuant to this ruling includes footnotes 5 and 6 of the document.
The Queen
Yucel