1 Introduction and Principles
The obligation to provide adequate reasons is a fundamental aspect of the judicial function and a key component of procedural fairness. Adequate reasons serve multiple purposes: they demonstrate that the decision-maker has properly considered the issues; they allow parties to understand why they have won or lost; they enable effective appellate review; and they contribute to transparency and public confidence in the administration of justice.
As the High Court observed in DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1 at [32], the "content and detail of reasons 'will vary...'" according to the jurisdiction of the court and the subject matter being considered. However, the usual baseline for adequacy is that reasons "identify the principles of law applied by the judge and the main factual findings on which the judge relied."
2 The Public Interest Immunity Context: Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi
The 2024 High Court decision in Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi [2024] HCA 34 provides important guidance on the adequacy of reasons, particularly in the context of public interest immunity claims. The case illustrates that even in sensitive matters, courts must articulate their reasoning process with sufficient clarity to demonstrate that the required evaluative exercise has been properly undertaken.
Background
The first respondent, Vincenzo Crupi, was charged with the murder of Giuseppe "Pino" Acquaro, a solicitor who had provided information to police and was shot dead in March 2016. The Chief Commissioner of Police had disclosed substantial documentation to Crupi but sought to resist disclosure of approximately 600 pages of additional material ("the PII material") on the ground of public interest immunity. The basis for the claim was that disclosure might reveal the identity of an informer ("Informer Z") or enable that identity to be ascertained, with serious risk to the informer's safety.
The primary judge dismissed the application to resist disclosure in a decision comprising only five paragraphs. The substantive reasoning was limited to observations that information concerning Informer Z would be "likely to be of substantial assistance to the defence" and that the Chief Commissioner had "not made good his claim."
The High Court's Analysis
The High Court found the primary judge's reasons to be "extremely brief" and inadequate. They did not disclose any process of weighing the competing public interests for and against production as required by s 130(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), and they did not justify the order for production that was made.
The Court emphasized several key deficiencies:
The reasons did not reveal whether the primary judge had "evaluate[d] the respective public interests and determine[d] whether on balance the public interest which calls for non-disclosure outweighs the public interest in the administration of justice that requires that the parties be given a fair trial on all the relevant and material evidence" (citing Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 95-96).
There was no evidence to suggest the primary judge engaged in the balancing exercise at the appropriate level for each individual document or class of document.
The reasons failed to address how competing interests were balanced, particularly given the "potential for serious harm to be occasioned to Informer Z should disclosure be ordered, and the impact on the provision of criminal intelligence by other informers."
The reasons did not explain key considerations such as whether refusing production would deny the first respondent a fair trial, or whether there were alternative means of disclosing parts of documents without revealing the informer's identity.
3 Principles for Ensuring Adequacy of Reasons
Drawing from Crupi and other authorities, the following principles should guide judicial officers in delivering adequate reasons:
(a) Articulation of the Legal Framework
Reasons must identify the relevant legal principles and statutory provisions being applied. This provides the framework within which the factual findings and evaluative judgments operate.
Worked Example 1:
Inadequate approach: "Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find that the plaintiff has established a cause of action."
Adequate approach: "This application requires consideration of s 130(1) of the Evidence Act, which provides that if the public interest in admitting evidence is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality, the court may direct that the information not be adduced. Section 130(5) requires consideration of several factors including [list relevant factors]. I must undertake a balancing exercise, weighing the competing public interests for each document or class of documents."
(b) Identification of Key Facts and Findings
Reasons should identify the material facts found by the court and explain, at least briefly, the basis for those findings.
Worked Example 2:
Inadequate approach: "Having reviewed the affidavits, I accept the plaintiff's evidence."
Adequate approach: "The critical factual dispute concerns when the defendant became aware of the defect. On this point, I accept Ms. Smith's evidence, corroborated by the contemporaneous email dated 15 March 2023 (Exhibit P3), that she notified the defendant on that date. I reject the defendant's claim of having no knowledge until April, finding this inconsistent with both the documentary evidence and the testimony of the independent witness, Mr. Johnson."
(c) Demonstration of the Evaluative Process
Where a decision involves balancing competing considerations or interests, the reasons must demonstrate that this evaluative process has occurred, even if necessarily expressed in general terms.
Worked Example 3:
Inadequate approach: "Having considered all factors, I find that an injunction should be granted."
Adequate approach: "In considering whether to grant the interlocutory injunction, I must weigh the balance of convenience and the risk of injustice to either party. If I refuse the injunction and the plaintiff ultimately succeeds, they will suffer the following prejudice: [details]. Conversely, if I grant the injunction and the defendant ultimately succeeds, they will suffer harm through: [details]. Having weighed these considerations, I find the balance favors granting the injunction because [reasoning]."
(d) Document-Specific Analysis Where Required
In cases involving multiple documents or pieces of evidence that require individual assessment (such as claims of privilege or public interest immunity), reasons should demonstrate consideration at the appropriate level of specificity.
Worked Example 4:
Inadequate approach: "Having reviewed all the documents, I find they should be disclosed."
Adequate approach: "I have reviewed each category of documents claimed to be subject to public interest immunity. For Category A (operational methods), I find the public interest in non-disclosure outweighs the interest in disclosure because [reasons]. For Category B (informant information), I must consider each document individually. Documents 1-5 contain information that would identify the informant and, given the evidence of serious risk to their safety, the public interest favors non-disclosure. However, Documents 6-10 can be partially disclosed with appropriate redactions because they contain factual information potentially crucial to the defense while redactions can adequately protect the informant's identity."
(e) Justification of Orders Made
Reasons must explain how the findings and evaluative process lead to the specific orders made.
Worked Example 5:
Inadequate approach: "For these reasons, the application is allowed."
Adequate approach: "Having found that Documents 1-5 should not be disclosed but Documents 6-10 should be partially disclosed with redactions, I make the following orders: (1) The application for public interest immunity is upheld in respect of Documents 1-5; (2) Documents 6-10 shall be produced with redactions to paragraphs [specific paragraphs] to protect the identity of the informant while providing the defendant with the factual information relevant to their defense; (3) The redacted documents shall be disclosed within 14 days."
4 Special Considerations for Sensitive Matters
As demonstrated in Crupi, cases involving sensitive matters such as public interest immunity, legal professional privilege, or confidential information present particular challenges. In such cases:
Balance between transparency and protection: While the content of what can be disclosed publicly may be limited, the reasoning process itself must still be visible.
Consideration of alternative measures: Reasons should address whether alternative measures (such as redactions, summaries, or agreed facts) might satisfy the needs of justice while protecting sensitive information.
Specific consideration of harm: Where disclosure may cause specific harm (as with the risk to Informer Z in Crupi), the reasons must demonstrate how this potential harm has been evaluated against the interests favoring disclosure.
5 Adoption of Submissions
While adoption of a party's submissions may sometimes be sufficient to provide adequate reasons, Crupi demonstrates the limitations of this approach. The Court noted that even if the primary judge's adoption of the amici curiae's submissions sufficiently explained the forensic utility of the PII material, it did not address the balancing exercise required by s 130(1).
Worked Example 6:
Inadequate adoption: "I adopt the plaintiff's submissions on this point."
Adequate adoption: "I accept and adopt the plaintiff's submissions on the interpretation of clause 5.2 of the contract, as set out at paragraphs 15-27 of their written submissions. Those submissions correctly identify that the natural and ordinary meaning of 'reasonable endeavors' in this commercial context does not require the defendant to take steps that would be commercially disadvantageous. I would add that this interpretation is consistent with the authorities cited, particularly Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 at [41]-[43]."
6 Adequacy in Interlocutory Decisions
Crupi highlights that even interlocutory decisions require adequate reasons, particularly where significant consequences may flow from the decision. While interlocutory reasons may be more concise than final judgments, they must still demonstrate proper consideration of the relevant issues.
This is particularly important where:
The decision may have significant practical consequences for the parties
The decision involves a complex evaluative exercise
The decision may effectively determine substantive rights
The decision involves competing interests of substantial weight
7 Practical Guidance
To ensure reasons are adequate, particularly in complex or sensitive cases, consider these guidelines:
Structured approach: Adopt a structured approach that identifies the legal framework, key factual findings, and reasoning process.
Checklist for evaluative exercises: Where balancing competing considerations (as in Crupi), consider creating a checklist of factors to address.
Document management: Where multiple documents require individual consideration, develop a systematic approach (such as categories or a schedule) to demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to each.
Transparency about constraints: Where the sensitivity of information limits what can be included in public reasons, acknowledge this constraint while still demonstrating that the required reasoning process has occurred.
Review for comprehensibility: Consider whether a party reading the reasons would understand why they succeeded or failed, and whether an appellate court could effectively review the decision.
8 Conclusion
The adequacy of judicial reasons is not merely a formal requirement but a substantive aspect of the proper administration of justice. As Crupi demonstrates, even in sensitive contexts involving competing public interests, courts must articulate their reasoning with sufficient clarity to demonstrate that the required evaluative process has been undertaken and to justify the orders made. Failure to do so may result in appealable error, even where the ultimate decision might have been correct.
