New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 120 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 6 March 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 March 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) PARTIES : v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : On Public Interest Immunity claim by NSW Police Service re confidential exhibits A and B to affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Moroney sworn 3 March 2000 - T4456 DECISION : See paragraph 4 & 5 DLJT: 106 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 120 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE MONDAY 6 MARCH 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (On Public Interest Immunity claim by NSW Police Service re confidential exhibits A and B to affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Moroney sworn 3 March 2000 - T4456) 1 HIS HONOUR: A subpoena was issued by the solicitors for the plaintiff on 3 February 2000 directed to the proper officer of the New South Wales Police Service. 2 Documents caught by the subpoena, but in an edited version, were the subject of a ruling by me on 2 March 2000 (NSWSC 112: DLJT 105). 3 An application founded upon public interest immunity has been made on behalf of the Police Service and I have read an affidavit filed in court of Deputy Commissioner Moroney sworn on 3 March 2000, to which there are two confidential exhibits. I have read those confidential exhibits. 4 I uphold the claim for public interest immunity, as it rests in one of the accepted categories thereof. 5 Inspection of the documents is refused and the confidential exhibits to Mr Moroney's affidavit will forthwith be returned. *********** Last Modified: 09/25/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision 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 or Tribunal in which it was generated.