Abstract
The name of a police informer is not to be revealed in court unless certain conditions are met. What this article shows is that the historical basis for this rule of evidence, ‘the informer rule’, is not particularly authoritative, that the rule has changed over the past 200 years, most recently in favour of the prosecution, that it is not well defined, and that it may not be appropriately applied. Despite widespread agreement that an informant's name must be revealed in certain circumstances, this article shows that in practice Australian courts almost never order that the name be revealed, and suggests a theoretical basis for understanding why the procedural right to know the name of an informer is subordinate to the perceived requirements of crime control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.