New details surrounding a controversial court case, which resulted in a former Australian intelligence officer being jailed, are expected be publicly released after years of secrecy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
However, an ACT court is yet to determine the extent to which sentencing remarks will be redacted.
The former intelligence officer, known as Alan Johns or Witness J, spent 15 months locked up in Canberra's prison after being prosecuted and sentenced behind closed doors in the ACT Supreme Court in 2018.
The case only came to public attention following a raid by Australian Federal Police of his cell in order to seize a memoir he was writing.
He was ultimately released from prison 16 months before the end of his sentence.
The case sparked outrage among the public and politicians, including former ACT justice minister Shane Rattenbury, who was unaware of the prisoner despite being in charge of the territory's corrections system at the time.
The little information available shows Witness J had pleaded guilty to charges related to "mishandling classified information".
In 2021, it was revealed the man was fired from his position after his security clearance was revoked due to concerns about his behaviour and failure to meet certain reporting obligations.
Former federal attorney-general Christian Porter has said the information was "of a kind that could endanger the lives or safety of others".
READ MORE:
In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum addressed barrister Tim Begbie KC, who represented current federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus KC.
Chief Justice McCallum said a person from a national security agency had applied "a measure of pressure" to get her associates to sign an undertaking in order to be briefed on the case.
Speaking directly to Mr Begbie, the judge labelled the attempt "inappropriate", saying court staff should not be exposed to a high level of criminal liability in order to do their job.
"I don't want to sound judgey but this is my court and I won't have it," she said.
"I would like to see a situation where there are uniform orders made in these kinds of cases."
Mr Begbie responded saying it was "an approach that has been undertaken in proceedings not only in this court but in courts across Australia".
Chief Justice McCallum referred to a decision by Justice David Mossop, who said in the case of Bernard Collaery that court staff could not be forced to sign such documents.
Mr Begbie told the court all parties agreed the information in Witness J's case was "very, very sensitive" and the issue was one of open justice.
"We've always intended this court would have some form of sentencing remarks published," he said.
"All that's left so to speak is a disagreement between the parties as to the proper form of that."
Chief Justice McCallum confirmed all parties were "moving towards [publishing] a form of the judgement".
The case was adjourned until April 4 for the parties to attempt to agree on exactly what should be made public.
Chief Justice McCallum indicated she would prefer the matter to be dealt with in court, in the interests of open justice, "not in my chambers with the blinds down".
However, she conceded any "secret submissions" may have to be dealt with in a court closed to the public.
"If there is going to be any application to close the court, we are going to need a week's notice," Chief Justice McCallum said.
Wednesday's developments follow the national security legislation watchdog finding Witness J's case should not have been withheld from public scrutiny.
A spokesman for Mr Dreyfus said the Attorney-General believed court proceedings, including judgements and reasons, should be as open as possible whilst ensuring national security information is protected.
"The Attorney-General requested this matter be listed for a hearing on the publication of reasons and first wrote to the court in relation to the matter in August 2022," the spokesman said.
"It is a matter for the court to determine what is published.
"The government is committed to ensuring that appropriate laws are in place to ensure the proper administration of justice and protection of national security information."
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
