6 ms·

From the article: - The court made this order to: "- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material th

by fblp 12y ago

From the article: - The court made this order to: "- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These orders are made on the grounds that they are: - necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and - necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. " The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice rather than for political reasons.

avz 12y ago
Yes. Because secret court orders and censorship strengthen trust in the proper administration of justice.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Proper administration and trust in same are not the same thing. A 5-year moratorium on reporting of (possibly false) allegations could definitely be the proper approach.
  - steven2012 12y ago
    Why not a 5 year moratorium on any details on any crime, since there could be significant defamation resulting from the trial? Why do these politicians have so much more protection that regular people? If international trade is so important, then why publish any details on any trading partner?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Some jurisdictions keep rape trials in camera for precisely this reason pending a guilty verdict. A great deal depends on the degree and credibility of the allegations made about the foreign counterparty, which I think the court is more qualified to assess than the public. As for why yu treat some politicians and public officials with kid gloves, the short answer is because they run countries (to varying degrees) and a domestic legal issue, while important, may not be so important that it justifies the risk of destabilizing another country, since Australia will still need to deal with the country in question after the individuals in question have left the stage. Ultimately, the value of diplomatic relations may exceed that of short-term legal transparency, depending on the circumstances.
      - roel_v 12y ago
        Shush! We can't have anyone be reasonable, now can we, when we are talking about democracy and transparency! Them corrupt fat cats are holding us down, and sunshine desinfectent something, and Assange is being framed, and Down With The Man!
      - steven2012 12y ago
        Nonsense. Which jurisdictions? None of the jurisdictions that value law and order have a complete shutdown of news over rape trials. This is political censorship. What's next? A ban on any political corruption trials on Australian politicians, especially the prime minster, because it could destabilize the stock market and cause a loss in confidence in the Australian Dollar, causing billions of dollars in potential damage? Money is not more important than what is right.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Rape trials are commonly held in camera in India. There's a serious debate about preserving defendant's anonymity prior to conviction in the UK, ably summarized here: http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Anonymity-Charge-%E2%80%93-Part-I http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Anonymity-Ch... I'm not sure there's a single objective standard for 'what is right.' I would be reluctant to accept economic stability as an argument for secrecy, but I would be equally cautious about the possibility of injuring another country's stability. diplomacy and transparency are often at odds, but I don't think that's a negative quality of diplomacy.
        steven2012 12y ago
        Yes, and India is not a bastion for consistent and progressive jurisprudence. You are the only one classifying it as a "serious debate". And since when does accused anonymity equate to a complete banning of reporting on the details of an alleged crime? If a country's stability is so easily damaged by details of a corruption case, then maybe it's time for a change. Nothing is more important than the truth and the freedom to report the truth. Who should be trusted to judge what should and should not be reported, and how much "damage" the truth would cause someone? The answer is no one.
  - beedogs 12y ago
    If you're an American and you just posted that, you might as well set fire to your Bill of Rights.
nl 12y ago
It seems likely that the individuals named in the order are likely to be brought up in the case. If - as a totally fictional example - allegations were made that the RBA's Note Printing division attempted to bribe the head of some fictional nation, that would almost certainly damage Australia's international reputation, especially if people within Australia later attempted to cover that up. Does the public's right-to-know outweigh that damage? Clearly the court thinks not. I'll just leave these links here: http://www.afr.com/p/national/probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_scandal_mVt5dvqtnWuNl8M4i7kmhM http://www.afr.com/p/national/probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_... (Note that the Saddam/Iraqi link is a separate case) http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/economics/asic/final_report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/ASIC/Final_Report/c23.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/sena... - look at page 370
NamTaf 12y ago
Cute that you say that we have one of the strongest separations between courts and the government, given what Queensland's government has been doing to the court system here. There's been a fair bit of press [1],[2] about the friction between the current government and the court system, due to the state government trying to bend the courts to suit their political desires (examples include the election of an allegedly biased chief justice, the VLAD laws). I'd agree with you normally, but it seems that the federal government is following the Queensland state government's lead in trying to manipulate the courts to their favour. I dearly hope we see some stronger push-back against that though because the separation of courts and government is one of the best things about this country. [1]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-campbell-newman-makes-major-policy-changes/5611970 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-cam... [2]: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-over-carmody-appointment-process-20140613-zs7ds.html http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-o...
- kimba 12y ago
  While it's true about the QLD government, that's not to say our court system is largely healthy (esp compared to most other nations) and needs active awareness. Being aware of what the QLD gov does is not at decrement to the standing of the courts... it should strengthen it.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  There's more than one court system in Australia; the order above was apparently made under Victorian jurisdiction.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nailer 12y ago
It could be for neither justice nor political reasons, but simply commercial ones. These nations are often trading partners, but there are some shocking cases of bad behaviour we already know about: Mahatir Mohammed's shaky case against his political opponent Anwar Ibrahim for example. A lot of these nations are new, early, or pseudo democracies and don't like or understand free press.
- lemming 12y ago
  ...and don't like or understand free press. That's a fairly ironic statement given the content of these documents.
  - nailer 12y ago
    Malaysia likes it even less than DFAT does.
pjc50 12y ago
Given the history in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunction... , the sentence "The court would be very careful about making such orders" carries little weight. We've been round this a few times. It would be nice if there was some sort of general, fair, system for preventing people's lives from being ruined by intrusive scandal reporting or unsubstantiated allegations. The current system is the opposite: the press is free to report what they want, except in rare cases where people with a lot of money or power get to suppress substantiated allegations of wrongdoing that the proper authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate. The Aitken and Archer libel cases stick in my memory; in both cases, conservative UK government ministers got substantial libel damages by lying on the witness stand. In those cases they were found out and eventually imprisoned for perjury. Since then I always read "prevent damage to .. reputation" as "suppress valid accusations of immoral behavior".
vithlani 12y ago
"- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These orders are made on the grounds that they are: - necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and - necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. " What a load of crap. Now that WikiLeaks has actually published the information in the public domain, pray what: 1. Damage has been done to Australia's international reputation? 2. What national security has been affected? 3. What justice has been prevented from being administered? All the Aussies involved in the case will be punished as they are Aussie, all the foreign nationals cannot be touched anyways because they are foreign. This court order is simply about protecting Australian commercial interests as well as trying to shield the RBA. Securency and its subsidiaries bring in considerable amount of recurring income. Why reveal it's mod op?

by fblp 12y ago

avz 12y ago

Yes. Because secret court orders and censorship strengthen trust in the proper administration of justice.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Proper administration and trust in same are not the same thing. A 5-year moratorium on reporting of (possibly false) allegations could definitely be the proper approach.
- steven2012 12y ago
  Why not a 5 year moratorium on any details on any crime, since there could be significant defamation resulting from the trial? Why do these politicians have so much more protection that regular people? If international trade is so important, then why publish any details on any trading partner?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Some jurisdictions keep rape trials in camera for precisely this reason pending a guilty verdict. A great deal depends on the degree and credibility of the allegations made about the foreign counterparty, which I think the court is more qualified to assess than the public. As for why yu treat some politicians and public officials with kid gloves, the short answer is because they run countries (to varying degrees) and a domestic legal issue, while important, may not be so important that it justifies the risk of destabilizing another country, since Australia will still need to deal with the country in question after the individuals in question have left the stage. Ultimately, the value of diplomatic relations may exceed that of short-term legal transparency, depending on the circumstances.
    - roel_v 12y ago
      Shush! We can't have anyone be reasonable, now can we, when we are talking about democracy and transparency! Them corrupt fat cats are holding us down, and sunshine desinfectent something, and Assange is being framed, and Down With The Man!
    - steven2012 12y ago
      Nonsense. Which jurisdictions? None of the jurisdictions that value law and order have a complete shutdown of news over rape trials. This is political censorship. What's next? A ban on any political corruption trials on Australian politicians, especially the prime minster, because it could destabilize the stock market and cause a loss in confidence in the Australian Dollar, causing billions of dollars in potential damage? Money is not more important than what is right.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Rape trials are commonly held in camera in India. There's a serious debate about preserving defendant's anonymity prior to conviction in the UK, ably summarized here: http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Anonymity-Charge-%E2%80%93-Part-I http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Anonymity-Ch... I'm not sure there's a single objective standard for 'what is right.' I would be reluctant to accept economic stability as an argument for secrecy, but I would be equally cautious about the possibility of injuring another country's stability. diplomacy and transparency are often at odds, but I don't think that's a negative quality of diplomacy.
        steven2012 12y ago
        Yes, and India is not a bastion for consistent and progressive jurisprudence. You are the only one classifying it as a "serious debate". And since when does accused anonymity equate to a complete banning of reporting on the details of an alleged crime? If a country's stability is so easily damaged by details of a corruption case, then maybe it's time for a change. Nothing is more important than the truth and the freedom to report the truth. Who should be trusted to judge what should and should not be reported, and how much "damage" the truth would cause someone? The answer is no one.
- beedogs 12y ago
  If you're an American and you just posted that, you might as well set fire to your Bill of Rights.

nl 12y ago

It seems likely that the individuals named in the order are likely to be brought up in the case. If - as a totally fictional example - allegations were made that the RBA's Note Printing division attempted to bribe the head of some fictional nation, that would almost certainly damage Australia's international reputation, especially if people within Australia later attempted to cover that up. Does the public's right-to-know outweigh that damage? Clearly the court thinks not. I'll just leave these links here: http://www.afr.com/p/national/probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_scandal_mVt5dvqtnWuNl8M4i7kmhM http://www.afr.com/p/national/probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_... (Note that the Saddam/Iraqi link is a separate case) http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/economics/asic/final_report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/ASIC/Final_Report/c23.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/sena... - look at page 370

NamTaf 12y ago

Cute that you say that we have one of the strongest separations between courts and the government, given what Queensland's government has been doing to the court system here. There's been a fair bit of press [1],[2] about the friction between the current government and the court system, due to the state government trying to bend the courts to suit their political desires (examples include the election of an allegedly biased chief justice, the VLAD laws). I'd agree with you normally, but it seems that the federal government is following the Queensland state government's lead in trying to manipulate the courts to their favour. I dearly hope we see some stronger push-back against that though because the separation of courts and government is one of the best things about this country. [1]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-campbell-newman-makes-major-policy-changes/5611970 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-cam... [2]: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-over-carmody-appointment-process-20140613-zs7ds.html http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-o...

kimba 12y ago
While it's true about the QLD government, that's not to say our court system is largely healthy (esp compared to most other nations) and needs active awareness. Being aware of what the QLD gov does is not at decrement to the standing of the courts... it should strengthen it.
jacques_chester 12y ago
There's more than one court system in Australia; the order above was apparently made under Victorian jurisdiction.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nailer 12y ago

It could be for neither justice nor political reasons, but simply commercial ones. These nations are often trading partners, but there are some shocking cases of bad behaviour we already know about: Mahatir Mohammed's shaky case against his political opponent Anwar Ibrahim for example. A lot of these nations are new, early, or pseudo democracies and don't like or understand free press.

lemming 12y ago
...and don't like or understand free press. That's a fairly ironic statement given the content of these documents.
- nailer 12y ago
  Malaysia likes it even less than DFAT does.

pjc50 12y ago

Given the history in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunction... , the sentence "The court would be very careful about making such orders" carries little weight. We've been round this a few times. It would be nice if there was some sort of general, fair, system for preventing people's lives from being ruined by intrusive scandal reporting or unsubstantiated allegations. The current system is the opposite: the press is free to report what they want, except in rare cases where people with a lot of money or power get to suppress substantiated allegations of wrongdoing that the proper authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate. The Aitken and Archer libel cases stick in my memory; in both cases, conservative UK government ministers got substantial libel damages by lying on the witness stand. In those cases they were found out and eventually imprisoned for perjury. Since then I always read "prevent damage to .. reputation" as "suppress valid accusations of immoral behavior".

vithlani 12y ago

"- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These orders are made on the grounds that they are: - necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and - necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. " What a load of crap. Now that WikiLeaks has actually published the information in the public domain, pray what: 1. Damage has been done to Australia's international reputation? 2. What national security has been affected? 3. What justice has been prevented from being administered? All the Aussies involved in the case will be punished as they are Aussie, all the foreign nationals cannot be touched anyways because they are foreign. This court order is simply about protecting Australian commercial interests as well as trying to shield the RBA. Securency and its subsidiaries bring in considerable amount of recurring income. Why reveal it's mod op?