Queensland should follow a Western Australia move and enact laws to protect journalists dealing with confidential sources, after a recent news issue revealed there is no legal protection for people making confidential admissions.
A recent issue in New South Wales, where teachers are being warned to caution their students of their legal rights, if the student confides in them, has in part highlighted the need for a system of protected confidentiality.
A 14-year-old boy confessed to his teacher that he robbed a service station and stabbed the attendant with a knife. The boy was acquitted after a NSW District Court refused to allow the teacher's statement into evidence because the teacher had not "cautioned" the boy.
Advertisement
Teacher groups lamented the ramifications of the NSW case, with NSW Teachers Federation President Bob Lipscombe saying it could change the way teachers and students relate to each other, especially if teacherscould be forced to warn students as young as 10 about their legal rights before counseling them.
Understandable though the teacher concerns may be, this has focused awareness on what, if any, legal protections there are for confidential disclosures or discussions for all sections of the community. The short version is that there are almost no protections for anyone.
There is a common misconception that admissions of misconduct to a teacher, a doctor or even a priest or laws of confidentiality protect confidential disclosures to journalists.
Not true. In Queensland, the only person who can hear an admission of guilt and not be forced to give evidence on it is a lawyer acting for a client. Everyone else: teacher, priest, journalist has no shield against being compelled to disclose what they have been told; if a court insists they talk. The laws here need to be changed especially to protect whistle-blowers.
The fact that teachers should be issuing cautions, not unlike those issued by police is really just a reflection of what is happening in the wider world now.
With just one exception, anything you say to anybody can be used in evidence against you. By the way this includes drunken conversations in taxis. It’s amazing how many people think that things they blurt out in a taxi are somehow protected. They are not and a subpoena can be used to have the information extracted in a courtroom.
Advertisement
Some journalists are under the belief they cannot be legally forced to identify their sources of confidential information. In fact they have no legal protections, but they should have.
Queensland should follow the latest WA example where landmark legal protection for journalists who deal with confidential information is being introduced.
I understand the WA laws will offer a special level of protection specifically to journalists to prevent them from being compelled to give evidence in court or to state parliament if they have promised to keep a source confidential.
The new laws will also provide greater protection for whistle-blowers who will be able to apply to the Supreme Court for an order to stop or remedy any reprisal action against them by employers. Whistle blowers will be able to anonymously give journalists information in the public interest.
The journalists’ union welcomed the new WA shield laws and say they provide a good example for other states to follow. The WA Attorney-General Christian Porter said the laws were the result of consultations with the media, judiciary and lawyers, and the protections for whistleblowers were the most comprehensive in the country.
Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren said the laws met three key tests. The shield protections would operate on the presumption that confidential sources remained so, unless a judge ordered otherwise, they would apply to journalists facing all judicial bodies and also protected whistleblowers."It's a significant step forward. It's a good model for WA and it provides a good basis for other states to pick things up," he said.
We certainly need similar shield laws in Queensland. Whistleblower issues here have included the Dr Patel scandal and Queensland Health’s various debacles, quite apart from past disclosures about police corruption and political misbehavior.
I applaud the WA moves as a major advance in sensible legislation to address an outmoded attitude toward protecting confidential disclosures.
Significantly though the WA shield laws do not apply to “citizen journalists”, that is, those not employed by acknowledged media organisations. The legislation provides a strict definition of a journalist and will not apply to bloggers. Given the sometimes uncensored, unchecked and extreme views pushed by bloggers, the qualification is significant. This is not a signal for wholesale anonymous ‘flaming’ via the blogs while hiding behind shield laws.
It would make sense to enact similar laws in Queensland. People need to be aware that at present here so-called private conversations have no protection when it comes to the criminal law. A confession to a priest, a teacher, a friend, or even a doctor or psychiatrist is not safe.
Police can subpoena that person to give evidence and they are legally required to say what they know. Even journalists can be required to break their ethical standards and identify their sources, or face serious consequences.
If a person told a doctor, or a priest or a journalist if their intent to commit a crime or had admitted their involvement in a crime, prosecutors are legally entitled to subpoena the doctor, priest or journalist and demand they tell what they know.
Moral, religious and ethical barriers may be thrown up but the legal steamroller is unstoppable. That’s why we need solid shield laws.
Lawyers are the only people who are not legally required to breach any confidentiality matters with their clients. Everyone else is legally fair game.
The NSW case should be a timely reminder for teachers, who already had a legal duty to report suspected crime, particularly if they were aware of a sexual offence against any of their pupils.The only private confessions that can’t be used in court are those obtained by a threat or inducement.
I agree with comments by WA Attorney General Christian Porter that the state’s new media protection laws would strike an appropriate balance between the public interest in a free media and the need to ensure courts have access to all relevant information.
The next stage is to see such enlightened legislation introduced in Queensland, a state where the disclosures of whistle-blowers have been invaluable to the greater public good.