SA lockdown: Single definition in state law may determine whether COVID-19 pizza bar liar can be prosecuted for his actions

South Australians want the COVID-19 liar to face justice for his actions – but whether that is possible turns on a single definition in state law.

The chances of prosecuting the man whose lie sparked SA’s six-day lockdown turns on a single line of state law – and the level of authority given to COVID-19 contact tracers.

On Friday, SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens said the liar – who worked at both a medi-hotel and the Woodville Pizza Bar – was unlikely to face legal sanction for his actions.

He flagged immediate changes to the Emergency Management Act (2004) and the SA Public Health Act (2011) to ensure the situation was not repeated.

Mr Stevens said his initial legal advice was that, while people were obligated to provide information at a contact tracer’s request, there was no penalty for a lie.

“My understanding is they can’t be arrested or charged, but my team will look at any mechanism whatsoever,” he said.

At the centre of both acts lies the concept of “authorised officers”, whose directions must be obeyed.

Their ranks automatically include all serving SA Police officers, while others can be deputised by Mr Stevens.

SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens. Picture: Kelly Barnes.

However, he said it was unclear whether or not members of SA Health’s contact tracing team were considered authorised officers under both of those Acts.

Anyone who fails to comply with an authorised officer’s directions faces, under the Emergency Management Act, a maximum $20,000 fine or up to two years’ jail.

That prison term was added to the legislation in July after numerous Victorians attempted to evade that state’s lockdown by crossing the SA border.

On Friday, Mr Stevens confirmed contact tracers were authorised officers under that Act.

The Public Health Act, meanwhile, carries a maximum $25,000 fine for failing to “furnish information” to Mr Stevens, police, the Health Minister or authorised officers.

It specifically states the potential for that information to “incriminate someone” or “make them liable to a penalty” is “not an excuse”, nor a legal defence.

The same maximum $25,000 penalty applies to anyone who provides “false or misleading information” in response to a direction.

On Friday, Mr Stevens said it was yet to be clarified whether contact tracers were authorised officers under that Act.

Barrister Craig Caldicott, co-chair of the Law Society of SA’s criminal law committee, said more serious offences could be considered.

“I would expect contact tracers to have been duly authorised and, if they are, then giving a false or misleading statement ought to result in a prosecution,” he said.

“If they are not, you may see the authorities lay charges such as endangering life, through an unlawful and dangerous act.”