This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/09/bernard-collaery-case-australian-governments-legal-bill-spirals-despite-dropped-prosecution
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Bernard Collaery case: Australian government’s legal bill spirals despite dropped prosecution | Bernard Collaery case: Australian government’s legal bill spirals despite dropped prosecution |
| (7 months later) | |
| Legal bill grows by $248,000 in three months amid ongoing pursuit of secrecy | Legal bill grows by $248,000 in three months amid ongoing pursuit of secrecy |
| The Australian government is amassing an ever-increasing legal bill in its ongoing pursuit of secrecy in the Bernard Collaery case, spending a further $250,000 since dropping the prosecution in July. | The Australian government is amassing an ever-increasing legal bill in its ongoing pursuit of secrecy in the Bernard Collaery case, spending a further $250,000 since dropping the prosecution in July. |
| The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, intervened to end the Collaery prosecution in July, a decision widely welcomed by lawyers, human rights advocates and Collaery’s supporters. | The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, intervened to end the Collaery prosecution in July, a decision widely welcomed by lawyers, human rights advocates and Collaery’s supporters. |
| Despite the end of the case, the government decided it would maintain a push initiated by the Coalition to have parts of the Collaery proceedings suppressed from public view. | Despite the end of the case, the government decided it would maintain a push initiated by the Coalition to have parts of the Collaery proceedings suppressed from public view. |
| The commonwealth is continuing to argue that a key judgment in the case should not be published without redactions, which it says are necessary to protect national security. | The commonwealth is continuing to argue that a key judgment in the case should not be published without redactions, which it says are necessary to protect national security. |
| The attorney general’s department was unable to say exactly how much the push for secrecy had cost taxpayers. | The attorney general’s department was unable to say exactly how much the push for secrecy had cost taxpayers. |
| Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup | Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup |
| Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup | Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup |
| But it said its legal bill for the Collaery and Witness K cases on 7 July, the date on which the Collaery prosecution ended, was $5.148m. | But it said its legal bill for the Collaery and Witness K cases on 7 July, the date on which the Collaery prosecution ended, was $5.148m. |
| That legal bill had grown by $248,000 in the three months to October, the department said. | That legal bill had grown by $248,000 in the three months to October, the department said. |
| The department said the extra costs were not “solely attributable” to its ongoing application to suppress parts of the case, and noted there “can also be a delay between external legal costs being incurred and invoices being received and paid”. | The department said the extra costs were not “solely attributable” to its ongoing application to suppress parts of the case, and noted there “can also be a delay between external legal costs being incurred and invoices being received and paid”. |
| The ruling the government is seeking to suppress was made by the ACT court of appeal last year. | The ruling the government is seeking to suppress was made by the ACT court of appeal last year. |
| The court ruled Collaery’s trial should not take place in secret, saying such a move would pose a “very real risk of damage to public confidence” and citing the importance of open justice in preventing “political prosecutions”. | The court ruled Collaery’s trial should not take place in secret, saying such a move would pose a “very real risk of damage to public confidence” and citing the importance of open justice in preventing “political prosecutions”. |
| But the court was left unable to publish its full reasons for making the decision because of an intervention by the then Coalition government. | But the court was left unable to publish its full reasons for making the decision because of an intervention by the then Coalition government. |
| Sign up to Morning Mail | |
| Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters | |
| after newsletter promotion | after newsletter promotion |
| The Coalition argued that publishing the decision would release sensitive information to the public and undermine Australia’s national security, an argument maintained by the new government. | The Coalition argued that publishing the decision would release sensitive information to the public and undermine Australia’s national security, an argument maintained by the new government. |
| Collaery has been increasingly vocal about his treatment in the past month. In October, his first speech since the case was dropped, he likened his prosecution to a “Moscow show trial”. | Collaery has been increasingly vocal about his treatment in the past month. In October, his first speech since the case was dropped, he likened his prosecution to a “Moscow show trial”. |
| “Without the pro bono efforts of the partners and staff of a stellar law firm, Gilbert + Tobin, and a troupe of brilliant pro bono barristers, I would not have survived the Coalition’s attempt to hide its dirty linen,” Collaery said in a lecture for the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. | “Without the pro bono efforts of the partners and staff of a stellar law firm, Gilbert + Tobin, and a troupe of brilliant pro bono barristers, I would not have survived the Coalition’s attempt to hide its dirty linen,” Collaery said in a lecture for the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. |
| Collaery, a lawyer, and his former client, Witness K, an intelligence officer, were charged for their role in exposing a 2004 mission to bug the Timor-Leste government offices. The espionage took place during sensitive commercial negotiations to carve up oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea, which a collection of corporates, led by Woodside, were seeking to exploit. | Collaery, a lawyer, and his former client, Witness K, an intelligence officer, were charged for their role in exposing a 2004 mission to bug the Timor-Leste government offices. The espionage took place during sensitive commercial negotiations to carve up oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea, which a collection of corporates, led by Woodside, were seeking to exploit. |
| In his speech last month, Collaery said prosecutors should have known there was no lawful basis for the spy mission. | In his speech last month, Collaery said prosecutors should have known there was no lawful basis for the spy mission. |
| “Instead of facing up to this, the prosecution aided the Coalition in a cruel four-year long attempt to hide dirty linen and punish Witness K and myself for speaking up for Australian values,” he said. | “Instead of facing up to this, the prosecution aided the Coalition in a cruel four-year long attempt to hide dirty linen and punish Witness K and myself for speaking up for Australian values,” he said. |