CTHRepealedAct
Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006
96ADCourt’s powers to order disclosure and to ensure a fair trial
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 96AD
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.
#### 96AD Court’s powers to order disclosure and to ensure a fair trial
Court may order that material may be disclosed
(1) A court may, on application or on its own initiative, order that hearing material or derivative material may be disclosed to prosecutors of the witness if the court is satisfied that the disclosure is required:
(a) in the interests of justice; and
(b) despite any direction given under subsection 90(1).
The order may specify the prosecutors (by any means), and the uses to which they may put the material.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following court:
(a) if the witness has been charged with a related offence before a federal court or a court of a State or Territory—that court;
(b) otherwise—a federal court (other than the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)) or a court of a State or Territory.
Court’s powers to ensure the witness’ fair trial
(3) This Subdivision does not, by implication, restrict a court’s power to make any orders necessary to ensure that the witness’ fair trial is not prejudiced by the possession or use of hearing material or derivative material by a prosecutor of the witness.
(4) However, a person’s trial for:
(a) an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory; or
(b) an offence against a law of a State that has a federal aspect (within the meaning of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002);
is not unfair merely because the person has been a witness. This applies whether the person became a witness:
(c) before being charged with the offence and before such a charge was imminent; or
(d) after being charged with the offence or after such a charge was imminent.
(5) Without limiting its effect apart from this subsection, this Act also has the effect it would have if subsection (4), or paragraph (4)(d), had not been enacted.