No charge against man whose ‘lie’ led to SA lockdown, but he is considering legal action for ‘ruining his reputation’

Police will not charge the pizza bar worker whose alleged lie led to the statewide lockdown – but he is still considering defamation action, his lawyer says.

The pizza bar worker who allegedly lied and sparked the SA lockdown is relieved he will not be charged and hopes to stay in the state – but fears the public will never give him a fair hearing.

The Spanish national is also considering defamation action against the State Government for ruining his reputation not only in Adelaide, but also his native country.

In the wake of Wednesday’s announcement no charges would be laid, the man’s lawyer, Scott Jelbert, told The Advertiser his client had been “belittled” by the government’s running commentary.

“Now there are no criminal charges, that makes it easier for him to apply for an extension to his visa – and both those things are of great relief to him,” he said.

“He has every reason to believe his reputation in Spain has been damaged because people there have already identified him … he’s no longer in quarantine but he’s certainly in hiding.

“He feels it’s impossible for him to say what happened, and what actions he took, in a public forum because people won’t give him an opportunity to explain himself.”

Previously, the government has said the man contracted COVID-19 while working at Woodville Pizza Bar from a colleague who also worked security at a medi-hotel.

It has further asserted the man told SA Health contact tracers he had ordered a pizza from the bar – sparking fears the virus could be contracted from pizza boxes.

Police outside the Woodville Pizza Bar after it was revealed a worker from the shop allegedly lied to contact tracers. Picture: Kelly Barnes/Getty

On Wednesday, SA Police Assistant Commissioner Peter Harvey said the man would not be charged due to a lack of evidence.

“The facts of the conversation cannot be presented to a court,” Mr Harvey said.

“SA Health exercised their obligation to claim privilege and not supply information to the investigation.

He said allocating resources towards the investigation was an obligation, not a pre-emptive decision nor a case of overcompensation.

“I have absolute confidence the investigation was appropriate based on fact … we are not led by the emotion that was caught up in the whole event,” he said.

Under the Public Health Act (2011), privilege forbids a first-hand account of the initial interviews with the suspected liar from being used as evidence in court.

It also prevents police interviewing the contact tracer who spoke with the man.

In a statement, SA Health said that health information gathered by contact tracers is treated with the same confidentiality as patient information.

“Information is only shared where reasonably required to prevent a public health risk,” it said.

On Wednesday, Mr Jelbert noted SA Health invoked privilege after he expressed his concerns, in The Advertiser on Monday, that his client’s confidentiality had been breached.

“The government has gone too far in the past, now it seems as if SA Health is trying to look to be seen to do the right thing … but it’s too little, too late,” he said.

“There are very contrasting examples here … at one press conference, Dr Nicola Spurrier declined to confirm whether a person with COVID-19 was 80 or 81.

“When it came to my client, however, many identifying details were shared … I think they’ve struggled with what’s okay to release, and what is not.”

Assistant Police Commissioner Peter Harvey. Picture: Tait Schmaal

He conceded defamation cases were difficult to prove in court, but said even those who had expressed support for his client did so “from the perspective that he lied”.

“Expressions of support say things like ‘even if he lied, he’s still been treated terribly and deserves better’ … that’s great, but it’s still coming from the basis he lied,” he said.

“That’s still a problem for him, because we do not concede that he lied, and it makes it impossible for him to explain himself.

“And he has every reason to believe those who do not support him, or hold grudges because they suffered losses due to the lockdown, already hate him.”

Mr Jelbert said any subsequent legal action would rest on a thorough examination of the reasons for the lockdown.

“We really need to drill down into why the government chose to implement the lockdown, and why they named my client as the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he said.

“The question will be whether or not it was appropriate to decide he was that straw.”