The High Court has refused a discovery application seeking documents concerning an alleged leak of confidential information from Criminal Assets Bureau proceedings.
The ruling arose in proceedings brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau against a respondent identified as M.A.L. under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. An initial order under section 2 of the Act had been made without notice to the respondent in July 2007 and, as required by law, in camera.
The respondent later sought discovery of documents connected with an alleged disclosure of information about the case to a newspaper. An affidavit asserted that, if the published information had been true, its leaking by CAB would have amounted to contempt, defamation and a serious invasion of privacy.
Mr Justice Feeney stressed that any leak of an in-camera section 2 order would be treated seriously and could require detailed investigation. However, no defamation proceedings, contempt application, criminal complaint or other separate proceedings concerning the alleged disclosure were before the court.
The respondent instead argued that the alleged conduct was relevant to whether making a further order under the Proceeds of Crime Act would cause an “other injustice” under section 3(3).
The judge rejected that interpretation. He held that the provision concerns injustice caused by the making of the proceeds-of-crime order itself. Even if confidential information had emanated from CAB, that would not, by itself, prevent a court from making an order where it was otherwise satisfied on the civil standard of proof that assets represented proceeds of criminal activity.
The court said it did not exercise a general disciplinary jurisdiction over alleged misconduct by parties before it. Any such allegations could be pursued separately, with discovery considered in those proceedings if appropriate.
The discovery application was therefore refused. The ruling did not determine the underlying proceeds-of-crime claim or whether any confidential information had in fact been leaked.