Harford V Linsky 1899 Queens Bench S44 Constitution

474.17 Criminal Code Act

High Court Protects errors in S474.17
Yesterday the High Court of Australia dismissed an application  for S474.17  to be corrected.
S474.17 is treated  the same as S471.12 Criminal Code Act [Monis V the Queen]2013 HCA. this was split evenly on validity against the constitution.
 The error  in this was that every Judge in Monis including 6 High Court Judges failed to identify that that the statute they were  constructing against the constitution had been modified and was missing its first line.
  Clearly the Judgment yesterday was to protect the error of the Chief Justice of the High Court Susan Kiefel who found the statute to be valid  regardless that it was not the statute legislated by parliament and so therefore unconstitutional.
The High Court had motivation to protect the error of of Susan Kiefel  and to protect the errors of many many other Judges in many many Courts in Australia

 Seriously  flawed  application of Criminal law created by  lazy decisions of the NSW Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia protected by District Court Judge Helen Syme

Request for stated Case.

1 The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia failed  to apply Basic statutory interpretation Skills to S471.12 or S 474.17 Criminal Code Act and failed to read the statute in correct context.  Further to this Justice Robert French  created a fictitious fault element for the statute or legislation which appears in no other statute or country in the world.

 This is a result that Justice French was too lazy to read the statute in correct context

2 The construction of “ offensive”  laid down in the NSW CCA  fails to  reach a criminal Standard. The NSW Chief Justice  found that  “offensive” for the Purpose of s474.17 or S 471.12 meant “Calculated or likely to arouse  significant  anger resentment  outrage or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person   in all circumstances”

The correct  test for “offensive’ is laid down in the Judgment of Worchester V Smith. O’Bryan J refers to Ex parte Breen 1918  Ledrum V Campbell1932 and  Wragge V Pritchard1930 .

 This lazy  NSW Chief Justice, Tom Bathurst, failed to correctly quote the Judgment  of Worchester V Smith 1951 in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal and has created a precedent for this interpretation which is binding in lower Courts.

Fiona Brown

Reference NO 2013/202652

fionabrown01@hotmail.com

  Judge Syme

NSW District Court

 Downing Centre

Sydney

7^th March 2016

Dear Judge Syme

 I refer to your abrupt response for a Stated Case for the  NSW Criminal Court of Appeal.

 I attach a copy for you to consider if  this response and your failure to outline  your reasons for dismissing the request  is appropriate.

 I remind you that you are obligated  provide me  with a stated case   or at the very least set out the reasons why you consider my request is irrelevant or trivial or frivolous.

 It is not a function of the District Court Judges to protect Justices  of the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal or Justices of the High Court who fail in their statutory duty in the application of Criminal Law.

 There are two atrocious errors in law in the application of S 474.17. The first is the NSW Chief Justice  failed to construct the word “ offensive”  to a criminal standard. This is a result that the NSW Chief Justice failed to read the Judgment of O’Bryan J  in  Worchester V Smith 1951 in  correct context   and relied on the Judgment of J Pape in Inglis V Fish 1961  and John Kerr in Ball V McIntyre 1966 who also misquoted the Judgment of O’Bryan J .

“Calculated  or likely to arouse  significant anger, resentment outrage  or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person in all circumstances “ is not the test laid down in Worchester V Smith for the word “offensive” which creates criminal sanction.

 The Test for “offensive” lies in the Judgments of Ex parte Breen 1918, Ledrum V Campbell 1932 and  Wragge V Pritchard 1930 which O’Bryan J refers to in his Judgment.

At 58[Monis V the Queen]HCA 2013 Justice French said

On the construction of "offensive" adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeal, conduct which a reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as offensive within the ordinary meaning of that term would not necessarily be offensive for the purposes of s 471.12.

 You have been told this but you consider it irrelevant. You have also been told that  that the construction of the statute fails to comply with the general principals of criminal responsibility. You also  consider this irrelevant

 The second atrocious error lies directly   with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

 His construction of the statute of S471.12 which is almost identical to S 474.17  in its application breaches Chapter 2 Divisions 3.2, 13.1 and 13.2 Criminal Code Act 1995. This is a result of the Chief Justice of the High Court failing to apply basic statutory interpretation skills  to the legislation.

 The Chief Justice of the High Court failed to read the statute according to Acts interpretation Act S 12 , failed to identify the physical elements which create the offence, failed to then identify the fault elements of the offence.

 To compensate for his atrocious errors, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia created a fictitious fault element which appears in no other statutes or Legislation in no other country in the world.

 It is not a function of the High Court of Australia to create fictitious fault elements.

Please provide me with the reasons you consider  such atrocious errors in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia should be protected by a Judge of the NSW  District Court.

 Alternatively you may like to reconsider your   rash decision  which you have made and provide me with the Stated Case I requested.

 I  will expect your response within the next 7 days and I caution you that   that it is not in the interest of Justice to protect such  failures in basic application of Criminal Law.    

 Thank You

Ombudsman wants to monitor warrantless metadata access

What the Fuck????? The commonwealth Ombudsman is so fucking dodgy that its already pissing on 80% of people who makes complaints to them . The Commonwealth Ombudsman needs the biggest carrot in the bag to sit on!!!!

By Allie Coyne on Apr 24, 2014 6:55 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

 

inShare2

4 Comments

Requests ability to report publicly.

Australia’s Commonwealth Ombudsman has put up his hand to monitor the collection of telecommunications metadata by the country’s law enforcement agencies, as part of potential reforms to national surveillance legislation.
In a parliamentary hearing on prospective changes to Australia’s Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the office of Ombudsman Colin Neave - which inspects the records of law enforcement agencies in relation to their use of covert powers  - offered itself up to act as an oversight body for the accessing of metadata.
Law enforcement agencies are currently able to seek non-content telecommunications data without requiring a warrant, thanks to amendments relating to metadata made to the TIA Act in 2007.
To actually access the content of a telephone call or stored email, a warrant is required - a function that attracts the oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Neave and his team wants their powers extended to include oversight of metadata access, which last year hit a record of 291,501 authorisations, according to the Attorney-General’s Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act annual report. That figure is up significantly compared to 243,631 metadata authorisations the year prior.
In comparison, 3764 telecommunications interception warrants were lodged for full content of communications.
Ombudsman Colin Neave acknowledged the “significant” impact such new responsibilities would have on his office’s resources, but said there were several ways to tackle the issue.
“[We would] work out an appropriate sampling program - that would be the normal approach to a volume responsibility along those lines,” he told the committee.
Another potential approach would be to look at policy and risk mitigation processes - rather than specific records - within an agency to ensure the issue requiring metadata access had been given appropriate consideration, he said.
“Looking at high level processes in combination with doing a sample may alleviate some risks from not looking at a greater number.”
Neave also repeated his earlier calls for the introduction of a public reporting mechanism to improve transparency.
The Ombudsman currently reports into the Attorney-General’s office on inspection matters relating to telecommunications interceptions, access to stored communications, surveillance devices, and controlled covert operations.
Neave said the ability for his office to publicly report on whether agencies had used their powers lawfully would play a key role in providing accountability and transparency.
“If we were able to report publicly it would align with our other reporting responsibilities under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914, and other legislative oversight roles," Neave said.
"We also note the Law Council, the NSW Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence have supported consideration of introducing a public reporting mechanism."
The controversial legislative powers around metadata access have drawn criticism for allowing agencies to “vacuum up” large amounts of personally identifiable data from the country’s citizens.
Committee chair and Greens MP Scott Ludlam has been a vocal campaigner against the practice, and was the driver behind the Government’s decision to investigate “comprehensive revision” to the TIA Act through the current Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.
Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.

Read more: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/383575,ombudsman-wants-to-monitor-warrantless-metadata-access.aspx#ixzz3V4Yz42Qn

Julian Assange and Swedens's Sex Laws
Clearly the sex laws are fucked  in Sweden and difficult to understand.
Nobody made a complaint to police over Assange so what went wrong?
Clearly the wording of legislation may be bizare but the underlying principal  in a criminal matter is the all  basic elements  of a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Laws are written by Parliament who have no fucking idea what they are passing and applied by Dodgy Magistrates, Judges  and prosecutors who fail to  prove the elements   are correctly  proven.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 13/03/2015

Reporter: Report by Mary Gearin

Under the so-called Nordic model, police prosecute those who pay for sex, rather than the sex workers themselves. But some who work in the trade say the law actually works against them.

Transcript

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Sex work, it is a job like any other or an activity that exploits women? The answers to that question s will depend on whether you believe sex work should be banned altogether.

The US State Department links prostitution with people trafficking and concludes, that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanising and fuels tracking in persons.

Across Europe, Sweden stands out as the country with a relatively low number of sex workers. In 1999, the Swedish Government became the first in the world to make it a crime to buy sex, but not to sell it.

Statistics on prostitution are unreliable, it's not the kind of thing people will necessarily tell the truth about in surveys, but a 2010 study found that street prostitution in Sweden has been halved since the prohibition was introduced.

The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of adopting the so called Nordic model. British MEP Mary Honeyball led debate in support of the Swedish system.

She said it punishes men who treat women's bodies as a commodity, without criminalising women who are driven into sex work.

The ABC's Europe correspondent Mary Gearin travelled to Sweden to witness firsthand how the law has changed lives.

KARINA EDLAND, SEX WORKER: It's such a great part of my life, even though some parts hasn't been happy happy, joy joy, I'm proud of what I'm doing.

MARY GEARIN, REPORTER: In theory, Karina Edland is free to be a sex worker without penalty. Her country is now famous for the system that has turned on its head the relationship between prostitution and criminality, a system where the buyers of sex are hunted and charged.

MARIE JOHANSSON, COUNSELLOR, PROJECT KAST: We don't think it's right that someone is buying another body, another human being.

MARY GEARIN: The laws are supposed to both protest prostitutes and dismantle their trade, but after a decade and a half, are the laws working on either front?

BEATRICE UNANDER-SCHARIN, ROKS, WOMEN'S SHELTER GROUP: I would say that it is a success that the Swedish Government has seen our view on violence against women and made that into law.

PEYE JAKOBSSON, SEX WORKER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST: I think Sweden is excellent at doing PR. I think Sweden is maybe not so interested in evidence.

MARY GEARIN: The way it works in Sweden is this: A prostitute can arrange to meet a client, the client, if caught, faces a fine of 50 days' pay, unless another crime is involved like pimping or running a brothel. The client is also offered counselling. The prostitute faces no charge. Supporters of the law say the stigma of prostitution has now shifted onto the client, but buying sex has become socially unacceptable in Sweden.

But how is such a law policed? One of the handful of cops in Stockholm's prostitution unit tells me it's all old school.

JONAS HENRIKSON, POLICE OFFICER: Every shift we need to go out, so we only work in the field.

MARY GEARIN: Jonas Henrikson draws on his form every life in the narcotics unit to track down clients, mostly men. By monitoring the very law that people say are free to go about their business, the prostitutes.

JONAS HENRIKSON, POLICE OFFICER: We sit here and watch the buyers approach, and then we filter them out, so to speak, we look for different telltales.

MARY GEARIN: What are those telltales?

JONAS HENRIKSON, POLICE OFFICER: Not going to tell you.

MARY GEARIN: Henrikson says between stakeouts and cruising the streets, he can make between five and 15 arrests a night.

JONAS HENRIKSON, POLICE OFFICER: Ninety-nine per cent of the cases the girls tell us exactly how it was, how much the man paid and what they were doing. And usually the man admits as well to the crime, they confess.

MARY GEARIN: Is there a paradox there that you are hunting for these women and the things that they are doing but the women are not the criminals, the men are?

JONAS HENRIKSON: To me, yeah it was a paradox in the beginning, but then I understood that when they wrote the law, they actually managed to implement the fact that men buying sex from women is equal to men's violence against women, and they actually managed to put that into the law, and with that reasoning it's kind of obvious, if a woman is being used and being in such a bad situation that she has to sell herself to get money, then is it really fair to punish her?

MARY GEARIN: Henrikson says Sweden has become much less attractive for human traffickers and the laws have strengthened links between sex workers and police.

JONAS HENRIKSON: Actually having a communication with the girls and they seem to trust the police in a good way.

MARY GEARIN: But Karina tells a very different story.

KARINA EDLAND: I did a stupid thing and got raped, and I couldn't call the police because I didn't want the police to target me for... because the thing that happens is that they don't target the clients, they target us to spot the clients.

MARY GEARIN: Karina isn't showing her face, she says, because of the increased stigma coming from the laws designed, after all, to wipe out her trade.

KARINA EDLAND: I always say to my colleague, it's better if you put us in a row or in a line and just machine us down, because my opinion of Sweden is they don't want us here.

MARY GEARIN: Former sex worker, Peye Jakobsson is an outspoken critic of the system that she says has made prostitution more dangerous.

PEYE JAKOBSSON: We have three different laws controlling our homes, so if we rent an apartment, and sell sex in our apartment, the landlord is forced to evict us or he may risk of being charged with pimping.

If we own our apartment, we have lost our right to own it if we sell sex in it.

So the only way you can work and only be affected by the law criminalising client is selling sex in the street or going to the client's home which would be two of the more riskier ways to work.

MARY GEARIN: It seems everyone agrees prostitutes need greater support from a social service system that still harbours prejudice, especially about mothers in the sex trade.

BEATRICE UNANDER-SCHARIN: I see women in prostitution, the same as I see women in domestic violence situations and they are not being in domestic violence doesn't mean you're a bad mother, and being in prostitution doesn't mean you're a bad mother, so that attitude needs to change.

MARY GEARIN: But from her experience working with women's shelters, Beatrice Unander-Scharin is convinced that the laws are right because prostitution is wrong.

BEATRICE UNANDER-SCHARIN: It's usually in every case that I have heard of and seen there has been something that has made the choice not a choice. It is a choice without an alternative and that's not a real choice.

MARY GEARIN: It's not clear the laws have actually succeeded in decreasing demand for prostitution. The law's supporters point to the red light district of Stockholm. It's nothing like it used to be.

Maree Johansson says the success is measurable, not in numbers but in attitude. She counsels both clients and sex workers and says the culture around the sex trade has fundamentally changed.

MARIE JOHANSSON: I haven't met a happy buyer, and I haven't met a happy seller, so...

MARY GEARIN: You wouldn't, though, would you?

MARIE JOHANSSON: No, I wouldn't, but anyway, at least we meet a lot of them; and they need help and they think the law is very good, actually.

MARY GEARIN: As more countries look at Sweden's model, Karina warns a system that seems like protection is becoming marginalisation.

KARINA EDLAND: It doesn't care about us. Sweden isn't like proud of having us.


Do you have a comment or a story idea? Get in touch with the Lateline team by clicking

Ex Supreme Court Judge and NSW Attorney General linked to foreign bribery scandal

Clearly John Dowd should have known better!!!

Australia's second ever foreign bribery investigation is launched by the Federal Police into a Sydney-based construction company with links to some of Australia's most notorious terrorists. Australia's second ever foreign bribery investigation has been launched into a Sydney-based construction company with links to some of Australia's most notorious terrorists. After a series of raids in Sydney last week, federal police charged the directors of construction company Lifese - Mamdouh and Ibrahim Elomar - with foreign bribery offences.It is alleged the two attempted to bribe Iraqi government officials in order to secure multi-million-dollar contracts there.Mamdouh's son, Mohammed, is one of Australia's most wanted terrorists, infamous for posing with the severed heads of victims believed to have been killed by Islamic radicals in Syria.Mamdouh's other brother, Mohammed Ali Elomar, is in jail for one of Australia's largest terror plots.Within hours of the AFP's raids on the firm's offices last Thursday, the former opposition leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party, John Dowd, resigned as chairman of Lifese where he was a director for over six years. Earlier this week AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin confirmed it was only the second foreign bribery case to reach the courts."The AFP holds 14 active foreign bribery investigations at the moment," he said."Of those though, only 13 have foreign bribery as a primary offence and I will say that of those 14 only nine are publicly known at this stage."Two matters are at court and neither are resolved."No charges have been laid against Mr Dowd, and the ABC makes no suggestion of legal impropriety on his part.The former NSW attorney-general and retired Supreme Court judge confirmed to the ABC he had resigned from the Lifese board but was unable to comment further as the matter was before the courts.Foreign bribery case a 'wake-up call' to company directorsNeville Tiffen, director with Transparency International Australia and former head of global compliance for Rio Tinto, said it was the duty of directors to ensure their company was abiding by the law."Having another prosecution in Australia for foreign bribery really should be a wake-up call to all directors and executives, both listed and non-listed companies," he said."If I was a director of any company I'd be really checking my compliance programs, not just for the sake of the company but for the sake of the shareholders and even for my own sake."The chairman as, if you like, the senior director, it's obvious he's in a pivotal position to guide the company."He should be making sure the board is asking the right questions of management, really testing out management, really making sure they're digging deep and to find out any weak spots in the processes." The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been critical of Australia's handling of foreign bribery matters.The director of Melbourne University's centre for corporate law, Professor Ian Ramsay, said Australia had been "on notice for quite some years now"."To some degree the Government has responded," he said."For example, several years ago they substantially increased the penalties where it is proven that someone engages in bribery of a foreign public official, but there's more to the issue here than simply increasing the penalties or having strong law on the books."At the same time, we need very strong enforcement and I think it would be true to say that the Australian record over a number of years has been fairly patchy, particularly under those provisions of the Criminal Code Act that deal with bribery of foreign officials."Mamdouh and Ibrahim Elomar will appear in court on foreign bribery charges next month and face jail sentences of up to 10 years if found guilty. - See more at: http://www.australiaplus.com/international/2015-02-26/foreign-bribery-investigation-launched-into-sydneybased-construction-company-lifese-with-links-to-te/1418895#sthash.tD7zQQBn.dpuf

Media Retention Laws/ Act like a spy!!!!!

Clearly a part of this is to fuck over whistleblowers!!!!!
If you are charged under S474.17  Offend, Menace and Harass must have a collective  meaning  and must cause a psychological reaction in the reasonable person . Watch out for fucking dodgy magistrates who fuck over people  by failing to  apply the necessary level of offence for this  to be criminal.   watch out for the shonky Magistrate Lisa Stapleton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Search Media Watch

• Home
• .

Data retention v media freedom

Can the media still be free and fearless under the Government's Data Retention regime? Many believe the answer is no

But now to more weighty matters and the vexing subject of media freedom.

Parliament this week will debate a bill requiring telephone companies and internet service providers to collect data from all their customers and store it for two years, so police and security services can get access.

The information they’ll be required to keep is called metadata but as to precisely what it includes, no one is 100% sure, and even the Attorney-General, George Brandis, has had trouble explaining.


DAVID SPEERS: If I go the Sky News website, The Australian website, a more questionable website, is that what we’re talking about here?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well, I, the, what you’re viewing on the internet is not what we’re interested in.

— Sky News, 7th August, 2014

We’ll come back to precisely what those phone companies and ISP’s will be collecting on you and on journalists in a moment.

But first, here’s what veteran investigative reporter Ross Coulthart recently had to say about what it all means for people like him:


ROSS COULTHART: It is the biggest threat to journalistic freedom ever ...

Metadata tells you everything. If you know who I’m calling as a journalist and if you know who’s calling me, and you can put together who that person is and where they’re calling from, who I’m emailing, who I’m getting emails from, you almost don’t need the content of the information, if what you’re doing is investigating a journalist who’s being leaked information.

— ABC Radio National, Media Report, 12th February, 2015

The government says that metadata retention is vital for “the security and safety of the Australian public”

But what exactly is metadata? And what can it do?

Well, essentially it’s the electronic trail we all leave on our computers and phones.

It identifies who we call and text ... and the people who call and text us.

It can also identify who we email or message on our computers ... and those who email or message us.

It could also include a record of the websites we visit. And possibly our browsing history, although the Government says it won’t.

And it can track where we’ve been with our phones at any time.

And all this makes life almost impossible for investigative journalists and whistleblowers, as the West Australian’s Steve Pennells explained to Media Watch.


STEVE PENNELLS: One of the bedrock principles we work on is confidentiality of sources. People talk, people talk to me and talk to other journalists, on the understanding and the promise that they’ll, that those communications will be confidential and even the fact that we talked will be confidential. Now, I can’t give that assurance, if, if the records of our communications or the fact we spoke are being kept and could be accessed by any number of agencies.

— Steve Pennells, Chief Writer, the West Australian, 26th February, 2015

Journalists’ call records and metadata have been legally available to police without a warrant since 1979.

And they’ve not only been used to keep us safe from terrorists.

Fairfax’s investigative reporter Nick McKenzie told Media Watch:


Too often we’ve seen sources subject to witch hunts when they’re clearly revealing information that isn’t about national security and is clearly in the public interest.

It’s happened at least four times that I know of where my calls have been checked but there may have been more

The Australian’s Cameron Stewart has also had his phone records accessed by the AFP, and he told Media Watch he is one of many


CAMERON STEWART: In Australia last year, there were at least five instances of, of journalists’ metadata being examined and I think they were for the, for the stopping the boats and all the refugee issues ...

… And the real worry there is that you’re gonna get governments who are not doing it for any reasons of genuine national security but are simply doing it to stop embarrassment and, and basically will hunt down whistleblowers.

— Cameron Stewart, Associate Editor, The Australian, 26th February, 2015


Hunting down whistleblowers on political stories that upset the Government has been a regular sport for Labor and the Coalition over the years, as one of our most respected political journalists discovered back in 2008 when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister.


Federal police hunt for Laurie Oakes fuel leak source

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police are sifting through the telephone records of Daily Telegraph columnist Laurie Oakes to find who leaked Cabinet documents which embarrassed the Federal Government.

— The Daily Telegraph, 23rd June, 2008

The police also pursued journalists from The Australian in 2005 after this front-page story by Martin Chulov and Jonathan Porter revealed the findings of a secret Customs report:


Airport staff ‘smuggling drugs’

Secret Customs report exposes criminal links

— The Australian, 31st May, 2005

The author of that Customs report Allan Kessing subsequently received a 9-month suspended jail sentence after a court found him guilty of leaking it to the paper.

Metadata showed that numbers at News Ltd had been called from a public phone near Kessing’s home.

And in 2004, two journalists on Melbourne’s Herald Sun were pursued by police after their story about denying benefits to war veterans embarrassed John Howard’s government.


Secret papers show bleak plan for war veterans

Cabinet’s $500m rebuff revealed

— Herald Sun, 20th February, 2004

Those two Herald Sun journalists, Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, were famously convicted of contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about their source .

But the police reckoned they had found him anyway by cross checking the journalists’ numbers along with hundreds of mobile phones and thousands of extensions at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Now it’s important to point out that all this stuff has been and will continue to be available to police without a warrant

And in future there will be far more information to access and a far greater chance that whistleblowers will be caught, which means they’re far less likely to blow the whistle.


STEVE PENNELLS: The consequences are huge for whistleblowers. I mean, In some situations it’s jail time. So, I mean, that’s why, that’s why it’s important. I mean they just wouldn’t come forward. I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t come forward as a whistleblower unless I was absolutely sure that our communications were confidential and, and I don’t know if you could give me that assurance.

— Steve Pennells, Chief Writer, The West Australian, 26th February, 2015

And Steve Pennells and his fellow journalists are not alone in their concerns.

Dr Adam Molnar who lectures in criminology at Deakin University and sits on the board of the Australian Privacy Foundation says the bill:


... poses a very grave threat to the rights to free speech in this country.

— Adam Molnar, Australian Privacy Foundation, 19th February, 2015

George Williams, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales is also deeply critical, telling Media Watch:


The fact that we’re the only democracy without a bill of rights means we lack protections for freedom of speech and the press. That makes our journalists uniquely vulnerable when it comes to whistleblowers being revealed.

— Professor George Williams, University of NSW, 19th February, 2015

So what’s the solution?

Well, one answer might be to make this data available to police only for criminal law enforcement and national security.

This is recommended by a joint submission to Parliament from Australia’s combined media organisations, including the ABC, News Corp, Fairfax and others.

Another answer might be to make an exception for journalists by requiring the police and security services to get a warrant when they’re chasing leakers.

After an official inquiry revealed how widespread such investigations have become in Britain, this is a protection the UK government is now set to adopt ....


Police will be forced to seek the permission of a judge if they want to retrieve the phone and email records of journalists, after the prime minister’s snooping watchdog found that 19 police forces made more than 600 applications to uncover confidential sources in the past three years.

— The Guardian, 5th February, 2015

The Australian government has not yet accepted either of those safeguards, but the all-party committee that’s been reviewing the Data Retention Bill clearly believes something may need to be done, because it has recommended that the Commonwealth Ombudsman or Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should be notified of any access to journalists’ data.

And it has also recommended:


A separate review by this Committee of safeguards relating to the use of telecommunications data for the purpose of determining journalist’s sources ...

— House of Representatives, Media Release, 27th February, 2015

But, until there is some exemption for the media, what can journalists and whistleblowers do—if anything—to keep their conversations safe from surveillance?


CAMERON STEWART: I know journalists who juggle multiple phones, for example, but I actually think the only way you can really do it is to go back to the Stone Age. That’s just, just stay off electronic communications, don’t take a phone with you if you’re meeting a source et cetera, et cetera. But then of course that raises the question, well how do you arrange those meetings in the first place?

— Cameron Stewart, Associate Editor, The Australian, 26th February, 2015

So how do you arrange that meeting?

Well, there’s an answer to that too. Even if it’s one that many journalists and whistleblowers haven’t yet thought of:


ROSS COULTHART: If I meet somebody for the first time and they’re gonna be a useful source, the first thing I say to them is, ‘never email me, never phone me’, and then I explain to them the reason why they shouldn’t is because if they do they’ll leave a trace. So we communicate like spies do in cyberspace using dead letter drops and it’s the only way to safely and securely protect a source.

— ABC Radio National, News at Noon, 25th February, 2015

And our advice to those who want to remain anonymous?

Well for starters, don’t ring from your home, office or mobile phone.

Ditto your home or office computer.

Send electronic information on a CD through the post.

And if you do choose an underground car park ... find one without CCTV, don’t bring your phone, don’t use your credit card nearby or your electronic travel card to get you there.

All in all, it’s pretty hard for whistleblowers not to get caught.


PAUL BARRY: Do you believe that society needs whistleblowers?

STEVE PENNELLS: Of course it does. Any society needs whistleblowers. In the absence of whistleblowers you've got to have complete faith in every level of government and policing and the justice system. And you’d be naive to think that.

— Steve Pennells, Chief Writer, The West Australian, 26th February, 2015

YOUR COMMENTS