Journalist not entitled to protect murder investigation source, court rules

A Queensland court has found a journalist is not entitled to protect a source who provided information linked to a murder investigation and terrorism raids.

Media lawyers say the decision highlights the urgent need for laws that better protect confidential sources.

The journalist, who has not been identified, works at a television news station.

The front pages of Australia's major daily newspapers during a campaign warning the threat of prosecution is having a chilling effect on journalism. Credit: Eddie Jim

In 2018, he received information from an unnamed source and directed a reporter and cameraman to knock on the door of a home. A few days later, the crew went back to the address to film an arrest taking place, according to the recent Queensland Supreme Court judgment.

The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission investigated police for disclosing information without lawful authority. A police officer has been charged, accused of sharing information illegally about a murder investigation and counter-terrorism raids.

The journalist was compelled to appear at a secret commission hearing to answer questions, including if it was a police officer who told him to go to the address, who the officer was, who told him there were listening devices in the home, and who told him about the arrest, Justice David Jackson 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 so he didn’t have to be questioned further and argued that the provision under the Crime and Corruption Act was invalid as it “impermissibly burdens” the constitutional freedom of communication about matters of government and politics.

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 Jackson said a journalist’s claim of privilege against revealing confidential sources was not protected by public interest immunity.

“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,” Justice Jackson said.

Media lawyer Matthew Collins, QC, said journalists did not have adequate legal protection to refuse to identify sources, and faced criminal charges.

He said confidential sources were a key way the media held the powerful to account.

“It’s not to say journalists should necessarily be entitled to protect their source in every circumstance. The problem is there is no ability under the law to balance the public interest in disclosure of information against the competing interests of the administration of justice in a particular case,” Mr Collins said.

He said the laws between states to protect journalists were inconsistent, and comprehensive laws were needed to recognise the importance of whistleblowers in "bringing to light things that the powerful wish never to see the light of day".

Minter Ellison partner Peter Bartlett said parliaments had recognised that in a democracy, the sources of journalists should be protected.

“Only if sources and whistleblowers believe their identities are protected will they come forward to disclose corruption and other improper activity,” Mr Bartlett said.

A spokesperson for Nine, the owner of this masthead, said the Queensland decisions highlighted the way Australian journalists were threatened with jail for doing their jobs.

It comes after public raids by the Australian Federal Police on ABC journalists Dan Oakes and Sam Clark, and News Corp’s Annika Smethurst.

In the Australia's Right to Know campaign, media organisations are urging Federal Parliament to legislate on a suite of proposals to curb government secrecy.

In April, Attorney-General Christian Porter said the government was committed to protecting press freedom.