SA Chief Justice Chris Kourakis has yet to reveal reason for recusing himself in AN0M

He’s said in the past courts should give priority to the public’s right to know, but the office of SA’s top judge has yet to reveal why he took himself off the high-profile AN0M case.

The state’s top judge, who ruled courts should give priority to the public’s right to open justice, has yet to disclose why he disqualified himself from the Operation Ironside case.

The office of Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis has yet to respond to The Advertiser’s requests for his written reasons for recusing himself in the case of two alleged AN0M users.

The requests were filed months after he refused an application to suppress a lawyer’s name over alleged sexual misconduct in a separate case, saying “open justice” requires cases to be resolved with “public scrutiny”.

They are “currently under consideration”, the court’s registry says, with further information to come “if any response is received” by them from Chief Justice Kourakis’ chambers.

In November 2023, Chief Justice Kourakis was one of three judges who heard argument about the legality of the AN0M app.

The app had been created and used, by law enforcement agencies in Australia and around the world, to monitor and subsequently arrest alleged organised crime figures.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

Chief Justice Kourakis, Court of Appeal President Mark Livesey and Justice Sam Doyle heard two days of submissions from prosecution and defence counsel.

They reserved their judgment – however, on January 12, 2024, the parties appeared before Chief Justice Kourakis alone for a hearing that lasted one minute.

“I make an order recusing myself from the hearing of these reserved questions of law … I direct that my reasons for doing so be sealed until further order,” he said.

Alleged users of the AN0M app challenged its legality. Artwork: Steve Grice

“The court will now adjourn briefly and will be reconvened by President Livesey as a directions hearing.”

Directions hearings are not open to the public.

Five months later, President Livesey, Justice Doyle and Justice Sophie David ruled in favour of prosecutors, meaning the AN0M evidence would be admissible during trials.

That ruling is now under challenge in the High Court.

Chief Justice Kourakis’ office is considering an application to access his reasons for disqualifying himself from the AN0M case.

In November 2024, Chief Justice Kourakis was one of three judges who dismissed a bid, by lawyer Enzo Belperio, to suppress his identity over sexual misconduct allegations.

Along with Justices Laura Stein and Chris Bleby, he ruled a court “has no right to depart from” Section 131 of the Supreme Court Act.

That Act says a court “must, on application by any member of the public”, permit access to court documents and records.

In his written judgment, Chief Justice Kourakis said the right of access to materials was “unconditional” and a court had “no power to abrogate”.

The court’s internal rules, he said, “must be subservient to” the Act, as the “principle of open justice” required matters to be resolved with “public scrutiny”.

The rules of the court, he said, “do not give judges of the court a super-legislative power to detract from, or abrogate” the provisions of the Act.

The 84-page judgment was handed down amid concern, within the legal profession, at the level of secrecy which, a number of lawyers argued, was not afforded to other professions.

Chief Justice Kourakis ruled courts had “no power to abrogate” the right to court documents. Picture: Dylan Coker

The Advertiser has filed two separate applications for the AN0M recusal ruling, on January 30 and February 11, and has yet to receive a response from Chief Justice Kourakis’ office.

On February 10, a courts staffer said Chief Justice Kourakis’ chambers were “considering” the applications.

A week later, on February 17, they said they would “ask the registry to follow-up” on the applications.

On February 18, registry staff told The Advertiser its requests “have been referred to chambers and they are currently under consideration”.

“You will be notified in due course if any response is received from chambers,” they said.