OPINION: No journalist should have to choose between professional ethics and criminal prosecution

For the past year, my loved ones have been forced to wonder why I’ve been so stressed and what I could have possibly done that was so invidious that if I so much as told them about it I could end up behind bars … writes NT News reporter JASON WALLS.

• OPINION: ICAC Commissioner Ken Fleming should consider his position
• Inspector dismisses ICAC conflict of interest complaint following investigation
• NTPA president Paul McCue says ICAC Commissioner Ken Fleming’s position is ‘untenable’

ABOUT a year ago today I took a call from a staffer from the office of Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Ken Fleming QC, asking me to come into the office for a meeting.

The NT News had published a front page exclusive of mine in the preceding days about an investigation the ICAC was undertaking so I assumed he wanted to discuss it and even expected he would be interested in who my source was.

As a professional journalist, I would never divulge the identity of a source but I was happy to answer any other more general questions he might have had and while the purpose of the meeting remained unclear, there was nothing in the phone call to suggest anything untoward so I agreed to go in as soon as I could.

It wasn’t until I arrived in the meeting room and I was handed two pieces of paper that everything changed and the true nature of the invitation was revealed.

MORE TOP NEWS

Police believe NT’s own ‘Hannibal Lecter’ responsible for Queensland murder

All tests from NT Covid case contacts come back negative

NLC’s Cahills Crossing closure ‘put safety at risk’: West Arnhem TO

One was a summons advising me I was officially under investigation by the corruption watchdog and compelling me to testify against myself, under oath, in his personal, bespoke courtroom, answering any and all questions put to me or face a fine of more than $15,000.

The other was a gag order explaining that if I told anyone (other than a lawyer or health professional) where I’d been that morning or what was to follow I could be prosecuted and jailed for up to two years.

I would soon be the subject of an involuntary cross examination conducted by Mr Fleming and his counsel assisting, experienced criminal barrister Jodie Truman, about everything from the everyday workings of a newsroom to questions about the source of my story.

My expensive Senior Counsel (generously paid for by my employer despite having no explanation as to why I needed him) argued I could not be forced to answer the latter questions based on the journalist shield law contained in section 127A of the Uniform Evidence Act and Mr Fleming agreed to proceed on that basis.

That gentlemen’s agreement, however, did not stop he and Ms Truman repeatedly asking me pointed questions directly to that end as my barrister was in turn repeatedly forced to leap dutifully to his feet in objection.

Award-winning NT News reporter Jason Walls.

By the end of the interrogation, it became apparent Mr Fleming had already formed his own view as to who my source was and he ultimately didn’t formally press the point on s127A.

We now know however, from the commissioner’s recent comments before the estimates committee, that he is quite confident s127A does not in fact apply to the ICAC and he would clearly not have hesitated to pursue other journalists to reveal their confidential sources if he felt it suited his purposes.

Indeed, Mr Fleming used his address to the parliamentary committee to specifically threaten to do just that after another article detailing an investigation into his own office was also published in the NT News.

The difference this time was that as those comments were public, colleagues and friends were able to rally around that article’s author and offer both public and private support in coping with the threat of the treatment I had been subjected to a year earlier.

By comparison, it is only now, one year on, that I’m able to tell anyone of the enormous pressure I was under that week, a weight I continued to feel for many months as I sat on my hands unable to speak truth to power without risking jail simply for doing my job.

For the past 365 days I’ve been bound by law not only not to publish a story I knew to be in the public interest but nor to seek the comfort or support of friends, family, colleagues or my union, either personally or professionally.

My health and relationships suffered as my loved ones were forced to wonder why I was so stressed and what I could have possibly done that was so invidious that if I so much as told them about it I could end up behind bars.

Among the journalistic profession’s code of ethics, the most sacred tenet is regarded by most to be that of never breaking a confidence once given to a source.

It is fundamental to the practice as a whole and if any one of us breaches it, trust in journalism itself is irreparably eroded.

As such, if Mr Fleming had pressed the point on s127A and insisted I reveal my source I would have willingly gone to jail before I did (and I instructed my lawyer accordingly prior to the hearing).

No journalist should be put in the position of having to choose between their professional ethics and criminal prosecution but thanks to his comments in estimates, the commissioner left no doubt about his willingness to do so.

And none of us would be allowed to know if he did.

Follow @jas_walls