Witness J, who was the subject of a secretive court case, pictured at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Photo: Supplied.
The barrister for Witness J, who was secretly charged and jailed, says “the interests of justice require” as much of the sentencing remarks in his case to be published as possible.
The unidentified man, who has the pseudonym ‘Alan Johns’, was a Commonwealth official whose high-level security clearance was revoked after concerns about his behaviour.
After he was fired, he made a series of complaints to his agency via an open network, claiming he had been unfairly treated, and communicated classified information which breached his secrecy obligations.
He admitted breaching secrecy provisions and was sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court to two years and seven months’ jail by Justice John Burns.
The legal parties have debated the public release of the justice’s sentencing remarks.
When the matter was mentioned in the ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday (4 April), the court heard parties agreed that as much of the justice’s reasons that could be published should be published while also agreeing that their written submissions on the issue could be made public.
“This is a matter which is almost without precedent,” barrister Joshua Nottle wrote on behalf of Witness J.
“Mr Johns was charged, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment entirely in closed court without identification of the offences and without publication of the reasons for decision on sentence, until now.”
Mr Nottle said, “the community is entirely in the dark about the facts and circumstances of the offence” and argued that the Supreme Court should try to make as much information public as possible, as long as it is “consistent with the protection of legitimate national security concerns”.
“Ultimately, the court must consider what is in the interests of justice and ought to publish a document which balances the principle of open justice and the need to protect national security while accurately conveying the reasoning of [Justice] Burns,” he said.
He noted this could be achieved by publishing a redacted form of the justice’s sentencing remarks.
Andrew Berger KC, counsel for the Commonwealth Attorney-General, agreed the court should publish a version of Justice Burns’ reasons which did not disclose “national security information”.
Chief Justice Lucy McCallum will announce her decision on the matter on 14 April.
Loading ...
