In a civil judgment handed down on Monday, South Australian District Court Judge Liesl Kudelka ruled against Boyle’s claim that his actions were consistent with the Public Interest Disclosure Act rendering him immune from prosecution.

But Judge Kudelka imposed an interim suppression order on the reasons for her decision.

Boyle had taken the action to stop the criminal case launched after he revealed ATO staff had been instructed to use harsher debt collection tactics on indebted individuals and small businesses, including orders to require a bank to hand over money.

He is facing 24 charges related to the release of that information and is now likely to go to trial.

His civil action to block the prosecution was the first of its kind and was considered instrumental in determining the strength and effectiveness of national whistleblower protections, which Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus is considering reforming.

The Human Rights Law Centre has described Monday’s decision as a major blow for Australian democracy.

Boyle first raised his concerns through internal ATO processes and then made a complaint to the tax ombudsman before taking part in a joint media investigation.

In those reports, he revealed ATO staff had been instructed to use harsher debt-collection tactics on indebted individuals and small businesses.

Those tactics included the use of orders that require a bank to hand over money from a personal or business account without the permission of the taxpayer.

Follow-up reviews found Boyle’s allegations of aggressive debt recovery practices at the ATO at the time were valid.

A federal parliamentary report also found the ATO had conducted a “superficial” investigation into his public interest disclosure.

Dreyfus previously declined to comment directly on Boyle’s case but said he hoped to update the Public Interest Disclosure Act to reform and improve the scheme protecting whistleblowers.

-AAP