Kieran Adair, Momentous vote by Parliament to protect whistleblower communications, Xenophon Davis, 30 Octber 2021
Ben Quinn, Assange extradition appeal: lawyers cite new claims of CIA plot to harm him, the Guardian, 29 October, 2021.
Caitlin Johnstone, From Press Freedom To Prison Systems, Everything Assange Touches Gets Illuminated, CaitlinJohnstone.com 29 October, 2021.
Chris Hedges, The Most Vital Battle for Press Freedom in Our Time, Consortium News, 28 October, 2021.
John Jiggens, Four Corners v Julian Assange: your ABC, their sneers, Pearls and Irritations, 28 October, 2021.
Dominic Gianinni, Prosecutor stands by Collaery court action, Canberra Times, 26 October 2021.
Amnesty International, US/UK: “Drop the charges, stop the extradition and free Julian Assange,” says Amnesty head, 25 October, 2021.
Latika Bourke, ‘Very clearly a target’: Julian Assange’s fiancée Stella Moris fears CIA will kill her, SMH, 26 October, 2021.
Stephen Charles, The Trials of Bernard Collaery and Witness K, Pearls and Irritations, 20 October, 2021.
Kieran Pender, Witnesses J, K – and L? Open Justice, the NSI Act and the Constitution, Australian Public Law, 12 October, 2021.
Paul Gregoire, Collaery Victorious: Court rules his prosecution should not be secret, Sydney Criminal lawyers, 12 October, 2021.
Australian Lawyers Alliance, Collaery trial: welcome removal of secrecy orders but prosecution should not proceed, 8 October 2021.
Christopher Knaus, Bernard Collaery hails ‘victory for justice’ as court overturns bid to keep evidence hidden at trial, The Guardian, 7 October, 2021.
Kieran Pender, A win for transparency, but now Collaery prosecution must be dropped, The Age, 7 October, 2021.
Editorial, Secrecy on East Timor spy case undermines trust in the court system, SMH, 6 October 2021.
Rod McGuirk AP, Court lifts secrecy in alleged Australian espionage trial, Toronto Star, 6 October 2021. This article appears in many papers internationally, including the Washinton Post, the Seattle Times, Malaysia News.
George Moore, Collaery wins appeal against trial secrecy, The West Australian, 6th October, 2021.
Christopher Knaus, Witness K’s lawyer wins transparency ruling as court cites need to deter ‘political prosecutions’, Guardian, 6 October 2021.
Anthony Galloway, ‘Win for transparency’: ACT court rules in favour of Bernard Collaery’s challenge to secrecy order, SMH, 6 October 2021
Sem Categoria, ‘Win for transparency’: ACT court rules in favour of Bernard Collaery’s challenge to secrecy order, IAPL Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers, 6th October 2021
Bernard Keane, Win for Collaery derails Porter’s attempt to cover up Timor-Leste bugging, Crikey, 6th October 2021.
Blake Foden, Bernard Collaery wins appeal against order to shroud ACT Supreme Court trial in secrecy, Canberra Times, 6 Oct 2021
ACT Court of Appeals Decision, 6 October 2021
Collaery v The Queen (No 2) [2021] ACTCA 28 – Judgment summary
Judgment Summary
SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Collaery v The Queen (No 2) [2021] ACTCA 28 Murrell CJ, Burns and Wigney JJ
6 October 2021
The Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal by Mr Collaery concerning the public disclosure of certain information that is likely to be given as evidence in his trial.
Mr Collaery is facing five charges alleging that he breached section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth) by communicating information to various ABC journalists that was prepared by or on behalf of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) in connection with its functions, and that he conspired with “Witness K” to communicate information to the Government of Timor-Leste that was prepared by or on behalf of ASIS in connection with its functions.
On 26 June 2020, the primary judge made orders under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) prohibiting the public disclosure of certain evidence that may be given during the trial of Mr Collaery.
The nondisclosure orders were sought by the Attorney-General for Australia. They would mean that significant parts of the trial were not conducted in public and that persons involved in the trial, including jurors, and others, including the media, could not disclose parts of the evidence given at the trial. The prohibition would continue after the conclusion of the trial.
Mr Collaery accepted that some sensitive information should not be publicly disclosed. Ultimately, he sought public disclosure only of information relating to the truth of six specific matters, which he called the Identified Matters.
The primary judge considered that public disclosure of information relating to the truth of the Identified Matters posed a real risk of prejudice to national security. His Honour concluded that nondisclosure orders were appropriate because they would not have a substantial adverse effect on Mr Collaery’s right to receive a fair hearing, and the desirability of conducting the proceedings in public did not outweigh the need to protect national security. The appellant appealed from the order.
The Court of Appeal accepted that public disclosure of information relating to the truth of the Identified Matters would involve a risk of prejudice to national security. However, the Court doubted that a significant risk of prejudice to national security would materialise. On the other hand, there was a very real risk of damage to public confidence in the administration of justice if the evidence could not be publicly disclosed. The Court emphasised that the open hearing of criminal trials was important because it deterred political prosecutions, allowed the public to scrutinise the actions of prosecutors, and permitted the public to properly assess the conduct of the accused person.
The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the primary judge to consider the admissibility and effect of further affidavits held by the Attorney-General that the primary judge has not yet considered, and which have not been provided to Mr Collaery or his lawyers. Subject to any impact that these affidavits may have, there may be public disclosure of information relating to the truth of the Identified Matters.
This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons. It is for general information only.