ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
With a cramped time frame, she did in 3 days what another firm dilly-dallied for 7 months. Lisa kept me informed. Helena made me feel comfortable in a sticky situation.
I will definitely be using your company in the future if needed. Lisa kept me at ease also there were no grey areas with great advice. Helana is a great front of house.
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Public Interest Immunity From Producing Documents
There are many situations in which legal, political and moral considerations clash. This is occurring in a matter currently before the ACT Supreme Court involving the former ACT Attorney-General and leading barrister Bernard Collaery and the Australian government. This case raises the interesting issue of whether and under what circumstances, a party can be excused from having to produce documents on the basis of public interest immunity.
R v Collaery
Collaery, a reforming former first law officer of the Territory, is being criminally prosecuted by the government, for allegedly providing information (and also conspiring to do so) about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, to a person. That information has been widely reported to be related to the alleged bugging by ASIS of the Cabinet room of the Timor Leste Government.
When this matter was last dealt with by the ACT Supreme Court before Justice David Mossop – the issue being decided was based on public interest immunity. This court ruled on whether Collaery should have certain government documents obtained by way of subpoena released to him.
What is Public Interest Immunity?
The Evidence Act 2011 provides at Section 130 for the exclusion of evidence of matters of state. That provision states: “If the public interest in admitting into evidence information or a document that relates to matters of state is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality in relation to the information or document, the court may direct that the information or document not be presented as evidence.”
Mr Collaery had sought a number of documents, including a brief for Australian Cabinet submissions, two briefs for Departmental Secretaries in discussions in the Secretaries Committee on National Security and one ministerial submission on legal prospects regarding an aspect of the case against Mr Collaery.
The government resisted, citing public interest immunity.
Justice David Mossop said the three-stage process for consideration of the claim was uncontroversial, following the process described by Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs in Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404 at 412:
“ … when one party to litigation seeks the production of documents, and objection is taken that it would be against the public interest to produce them, the court is required to consider two conflicting aspects of the public interest, namely whether harm would be done by the production of the documents, and whether the administration of justice would be frustrated or impaired if the documents were withheld, and to decide which of those aspects predominates. The final step in this process – the balancing exercise – can only be taken when it appears that both aspects of the public interest do require consideration – i.e., when it appears, on the one hand, that damage would be done to the public interest by producing the documents sought or documents of that class, and, on the other hand, that there are or are likely to be documents which contain material evidence. The court can then consider the nature of the injury which the nation or the public service would be likely to suffer, and the evidentiary value and importance of the documents in the particular litigation”.
Justice Mossop’s consideration of public interest immunity
Justice Mossop found authority that said significant weight had to be given to the views of government officials but that the entity claiming privilege had to show a “real risk of harm”, not just that harm was more probable than not.
Documents recording the actual deliberations of Cabinet, as distinct from other Cabinet documents, have “a pre-eminent claim to confidentiality” but it is not absolute: the detriment to the public interest involved in disclosure could be outweighed by the public interest in the advancement of justice. But such a situation was exceedingly rare.
In Mr Colleary’s case, a senior official of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet gave evidence, saying, “Generally speaking, the five documents are either Cabinet documents themselves, or their content is substantially and specifically replicated in the Cabinet documents, such that their disclosure would reveal Cabinet deliberations.” Counsel for Mr Collaery submitted that the documents were “far removed from Cabinet deliberations” and hence did not attract immunity.
Much of Justice Mossop’s decision under the heading “The public interest identified by the defendant” was redacted, and many of Mr Collaery’s arguments were not accepted.
Justice Mossop said, “I do not accept the submission that the documents, because of their degree of removal from the actual deliberations of Cabinet, cannot be covered by immunity. I have accepted the evidence of [the senior government official] that, as a matter of fact, the disclosure of the documents will allow reliable inferences to be drawn about Cabinet deliberations and the positions adopted during the course of those deliberations.
“Because of their relationship to the deliberations of Cabinet, as disclosed in the evidence, there is a recognised and strong public interest in not having those documents disclosed in court proceedings.”
While Justice Mossop’s study of the legislation and case law was comprehensive, it had to be – by its very nature – a purely legal analysis. The political and moral questions raised in this case are being played out in the court of public opinion.
Mr Collaery’s case has attracted considerable interest, with a group of supporters regularly attending his court appearances and making peaceful demonstrations at the front of the ACT law courts.
Civil Liberties Australia has had a long involvement with the case.
A former Member of the South Australian Legislative Council, Sandra Kanck (Australian Democrat), told a CLA rally on 9 November 2020: “Australia was involved in espionage against our neighbour Timor Leste, a developing nation, a nation attempting to rebuild itself after years of colonisation, cultural suppression and, latterly, genocide.
“As a proud new nation, rebuilding from scratch, Timor Leste ought to have been able to expect better of its neighbour and so-called developed nation, Australia, in the … treaty negotiations over oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea.
“Instead – and the instruction must have come from on high – ASIS bugged the Timor Leste negotiating team’s office in Dili. This effectively tied the hands of the negotiating team behind their backs without them even knowing it was so.
“It guaranteed Timor Leste obtained minimal outcomes from the treaty, including even the gas that was within their own maritime borders. Shame, Australia, shame.”
The source of media reports about the bugging was allegedly a former ASIS operative known only as Witness K, who has been charged along with Mr Collaery.
Ms Kanck continued, speaking of Mr Collaery: “What did he do to deserve the charges against him? He did what a lawyer should do. He represented his client, Witness K. Since when did representing a client become a crime? It seems when Australia’s Attorney-General, Christian Porter, says so.”
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
In a recent ACT Magistrates Court decision, a man has been found not guilty of both menacing driving and property…
“Alibi” is one legal term which many laypeople would feel confident defining. An alibi is of course, “a claim or…
Two different views of the one piece of CCTV footage made all the difference in the 2020 ACT Supreme Court…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth