Australian Court Says Journalist Can't Protect Sources in Murder, Terrorism Case

In another blow to press freedom in Australia, a Queensland court ruled that an unidentified TV journalist can't protect a source who gave information in a murder case and terrorism raids.

That came as the government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison is still prosecuting ABC journalist Dan Oakes for a story alleging war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst for reporting secret plans to spy on citizens.

Reporters rely on confidential sources in sensitive cases and promise them not to reveal their identities. At the same time, the Australian government is pressing journalists hard in what critics said is a bid to break the link with whistleblowers and sources.

The journalist in this case got information in 2018 and directed a reporter and cameraman to knock on the door of a home, returning a few days later to film an arrest taking place, the court said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Giving a clue to the source without identifying who it was, the The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission investigated police for disclosing information without lawful authority. A police officer has been charged as the alleged leak.

But the journalist still refused to reveal the name even when compelled to appear at a secret commission hearing to answer questions, including whether a police officer was the source nor other details, the paper said.

The journalist refused to answer the questions on the grounds of public interest immunity and took the case to the Supreme Court to decide whether he had the legal basis to refuse to reveal his source.

His lawyers also asked for an injunction to bar further questioning and said a provision of the Crime and Corruption Act was invalid as it “impermissibly burdens” the constitutional freedom of communication about matters of government and politics, but lost.

The journalist, who argued there was a public interest in keeping sources confidential and the disclosure of information to him was not a misuse of information, lost on all grounds.

Justice David Jackson said a journalist’s claim of privilege against revealing confidential sources was not protected by public interest immunity, a sweeping ruling that could break a long-standing journalist method of gaining information in the public interest.

“It is not an immunity from production of a governmental document or communication and it is not an objection taken by an arm of the executive,” the justice said.

That challenges the way reporters work, some of whom have gone to jail in the United States for refusing to reveal sources, where most states have shield laws or providing qualified privileges for journalists.

In Washington state – which has a shield law - five media outlets are fighting a Seattle Police Department demand to turn over unpublished photos and video footage of protesters, arguing that it would cause potential sources to stop talking to journalists in fear they would be de facto law enforcement agents.

In Australia, media lawyer Matthew Collins told the paper that journalists don't have adequate legal protection to refuse to identify sources, and faced criminal charges, leaving them vulnerable.