Australian Court Says Raid Of Journalist's Home Was Illegal... But Allows Federal Police To Keep The Evidence They Seized

from the wrong-but-not-wrong-enough-I-guess dept

Last year, the Australian government decided journalists just weren't feeling chilly enough. In response to the publication of leaked documents detailing the government's plan to allow more domestic surveillance, the Australian Federal Police started raiding journalists' homes.

They started with News Corp. journalist Annika Smethurst's home. Hours later, police raided broadcaster Ben Fordham's home. A third raid was broadcast live, as the AFP swarmed ABC's offices seeking documents that might reveal who leaked sensitive documents to journalists.

Australia's prime minister, Scott Morrison, had no problem with this cop-based threat to the country's free speech protections.

Asked if the news troubled him, he said: “It never troubles me that our laws are being upheld.”

The laws aren't being upheld. That's the determination of the country's highest court. In fact, they're being broken.

News Corp. journalist Annika Smethurst went to the High Court to overturn the warrant that was executed on her Canberra home in June last year and triggered a national campaign for greater press freedom.

The seven judges unanimously agreed that the warrant was invalid, partly because it failed to state the offense suspected with sufficient precision.

Unfortunately, the court didn't go so far as to uphold protections for journalists that should shield them from law enforcement raids seeking to uncover their sources.

But the majority of judges rejected her application for the material seized to be destroyed, meaning police could still use it as evidence against her.

This ruling only raises further questions. If the warrant is invalid, what is this evidence being used for? The charges are unclear, according to this court, but somehow the evidence of… whatever… is still valid and can be used to engage in an investigation, if not a prosecution?

For the moment, the AFP says it won't be looking at the evidence it took from Smethurst's home.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw said the evidence taken from Smethurst had been “quarantined” from the investigation for the moment.

“So what we’ll do carefully and correctly is take legal advice … on what we do with that particular material,” Kershaw told reporters. “Investigators are not able to look at that.”

That may be, but that statement doesn't say anything about any "looking at" that may have been occurred before court proceedings made it potentially unwise to keep sifting through possibly-tainted evidence.

With this still unsettled, this statement -- from the head of News Corp. -- seems a bit overconfident.

“The High Court ruling sends an indisputable message, that the Federal Police must obey the law and that their raid on Annika Smethurst’s home was illegal,” Miller said in a statement. “Annika Smethurst should not be prosecuted for simply doing her job as a journalist to rightly inform Australians on serious matters of public interest.”

Michael Miller is right: Smethurst should not have been targeted -- much less raided -- for publishing leaked documents. The government's supposed allegiance to protecting free speech rights should have prevented a journalist from being the subject of a law enforcement investigation. But he's somewhat wrong about the message the court sent. It did say the warrant was invalid. But it refused to force the AFP to destroy the illegally obtained evidence. That's not an "indisputable message." That's a mess that still needs to be properly sorted out. All it really says is the AFP needs to be a bit more careful crafting warrants before disregarding the protections Australian journalists are supposed to have.

Filed Under: annika smethurst, australia, free press, free speech, journalism, leaks, raiding journalists, warrant
Companies: news corp


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Paul Clark, 24 Apr 2020 @ 3:28am

    The Best Solution for this

    Of course, the best solution for this, other than the courts to actually do their job, is to create fake documents that identify multiple incorrect but possible sources. I don't think Australian has laws about creating fake documents for personal amusement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 5:13am

      Re: The Best Solution for this

      They'd probably do the same thing US LEOs would do and charge you with interfering with an investigation. One of many charges used when there's no real law broken to punish the peon for not knowing his place.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Peter, 24 Apr 2020 @ 4:58am

    Question

    What do you call an illegal where you get to keep the proceeds with zero punishment?

    Standard practice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 6:15am

    'But really, pretty please don't do that again.'

    Court: The searches were absolutely, without question illegal.
    Police: And the evidence obtained from them?
    Court: Oh you can keep all of that.
    Police: So the incentive for us not to engage in illegal searches in the future is...?
    Court: Completely nonexistent, yes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2020 @ 7:14am

      Re: 'But really, pretty please don't do that again.'

      Maybe they are being allowed to keep the evidence so that it can be used to prosecute the cops who broke the law? That would literally be the only valid reason to keep illegally obtained evidence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re: 'But really, pretty please don't do that again.'

        I'd believe that they're keeping it to feed the department's unicorn long before I'd consider that a viable possibility. No, sadly this is likely yet another case of judges either corrupt or spineless, unwilling to rule against police in any meaningful fashion beyond a light slap on the wrist.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2020 @ 11:59am

      Re: 'But really, pretty please don't do that again.'

      The evidence must be forcibly quarantined to the Parallel Construction Room. It may also be stored in the We'll Use This To Fuck With You Later Room, if necessary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Koby (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 8:34am

    Guilty But No Punishment

    I'm reminded of the Scopes Monkey Trial, where a school teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution, however he was fined a paltry amount, thereby effectively winning the case. In this situation, the Australian court determined that the journalist won, yet was unable to command the desired action: destroy the illegally obtained evidence. This is a travesty. We need to understand that even though the court found in favor of the journalist, that this court is no friend of free speech, or the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2020 @ 10:06am

    The message

    “The High Court ruling sends an indisputable message, "
    we can do what we want since you're not part of 'high' society

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 11:14am

    Commissioner Kershaw has created an opening!

    Having admitted on the public record that he can do without
    those files at the moment and with the court having found
    no legitimate investigation, thus no lawful use for the files,
    the reporter, her publisher and national representatives of the
    Australian press can apply to have the court take custody and
    force the AFP to apply for access before touching them again.

    That press coalition is then in a position to oppose such an
    application in open court, thus discouraging the government from
    misusing the files in secret; likely their intent all along.

    This also gives Australians more time to pass laws to protect
    the press and their legitimate sources.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 11:27am

    Commissioner Kershaw has created an opening!

    Having admitted on the public record that he can do without
    those files at the moment and with the court having found that
    no legitimate investigation, thus no lawful use for the files,
    the reporter, her publisher and national representatives of the
    Australian press can apply to have the court take custody and
    force the AFP to apply for access before touching them again.

    That press coalition is then in a position to oppose such an
    application in open court, thus discouraging the government from
    misusing the files in secret; likely their intent all along.

    This also gives Australians more time to pass laws to protect
    the press and their legitimate sources.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2020 @ 2:33pm

    Now where else have i heard of instances of this sort of thing happening? Oh, yeah! Here in the good ol' US of A!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2020 @ 1:04am

    Indisputable Message

    Citizens have only those rights that our mutually supportive, fascistic whimsy admits. Further, even if some of us admit the existence of certain right and principles derived from it, that doesn't mean the right won't be allowed to be violated.

    Signed: High Court, Prime Minister, Federal Police

    tl;dr: In Australia, "rights" doesn't mean what you think it means.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.