Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 17 Const. Application No. 79/14 The use of the words “the public interest” in s 85(1)(d) suggests that there are many categories or facets of public interest. The task is to ascertain, amongst others, the public interest to be served. As was observed by the Australian Federal Court in Mckinnon v Secretary Department of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 at para. [12], “the public interest is not one homogenous undivided concept”. Often quoted is LORD HAILSHAM’S dictum in D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171 at 230 where he said “The categories of public interest are not closed”. Matters of public interest that would affect fundamental rights and freedoms would include, for example, public health, national security, defence, international obligations, proper and due administration of criminal justice; independence of the judiciary, observance of the rule of law, the welfare of children, a clean environment, among others. Public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the well-being of its members. The paramount test should be whether the alleged infringement of a fundamental right or freedom has the effect of prejudicially affecting or potentially affecting the community at large or a significant section or segment of the community. The test covers cases of marginalised or underprivileged persons in society who because of sufficient reasons such as poverty, disability, socially and economically disadvantaged positions, are unable to approach a court to vindicate their rights. Section 85(1)(d) of the Constitution was introduced with the view of providing expansive access to justice to wider interests in society, particularly the vulnerable groups in society, the infringement of whose rights would have remained unredressed under the narrow