Injunctions—Interlocutory—Actual or threatened breach of criminal law—Confidential information—Classified government documents—Unauthorized use—Detriment—Exposure of government action to discussion or criticism—Public interest—Prejudice to national security, relations with foreign countries and ordinary business of government—Copyright—Infringement—Fair dealing—Unpublished literary work—Public interest—Whether damages adequate remedy—Crown practice—Whether undertaking as to damages by Crown required—Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s. 79—Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss. 41, 42.
Decision
December 1. MASON J. delivered the following written judgment: - This is a motion to continue ex parte injunctions which I granted at about 12.45 a.m. on Saturday, 8 November 1980, restraining the defendants from publishing (a) a book entitled Documents on Australian Defence and Foreign Policy 1968-1975 or the contents thereof or excerpts or extracts therefrom; and (b) documents entitled "The Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy" written by the Department of Defence in 1968 and "The Regional Outlook in South East Asia" produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1975 or the contents of either of them or any excerpts or extracts therefrom. (at p44)
2. The circumstances in which the injunctions came to be granted were unusual. The plaintiff became aware for the first time on the afternoon of Friday, 7 November, that the book was to be published shortly and that its contents were to be serialized in The Age newspaper published in Melbourne by the second and third defendants commencing in the morning issue on Saturday, 8 November. Although the plaintiff did not obtain a copy of the book before the afternoon of Monday, 10 November, it did obtain a copy of the front page of the dust jacket and a "flier" on the Friday afternoon. They provided some indication of the contents of the book, enough to reveal that the documents to be published included the two already referred to as well as unpublished Government "memoranda, assessments, briefings and cables" relating to such topics as "the East Timor crisis seen largely through the cables which passed between Djakarta and Canberra at the time, the renegotiations of the agreements covering US military bases in Australia, the presence of the Soviet Navy in the Indian Ocean, Australia's support for the Shah of Iran and the predictions for the future of his regime, the security of the Butterworth base, outlines of the structure of the US and UK intelligence services" and other matters, including the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty. (at p45)
3. On the Friday evening Mr. W.B. Pritchett, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, in telephone conversations with Mr. Cole-Adams, associate editor of The Age, and Mr. Hastings, associate and foreign editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, published by the first defendant, ascertained that both newspapers intended to publish on the Saturday morning the first serial from the book. Mr. Pritchett claimed that the documents to be published in the book included classified material and were of current sensitivity. The editors disputed the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] HCA 44
Case
[1980] HCA 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth sought an injunction to restrain John Fairfax & Sons Ltd from publishing certain information concerning the proposed establishment of a new Australian embassy in Jakarta. The Commonwealth argued that publication would be contrary to the public interest, as it would prejudice the government's ability to conduct foreign relations and potentially endanger national security.
The central legal issue before Mason J was whether the court possessed the power to grant an injunction to restrain the publication of material on the grounds of public interest, and if so, whether the circumstances of this case warranted the exercise of such a power. This involved considering the balance between the executive government's responsibility for national security and foreign affairs, and the public's right to receive information.
Mason J considered the principles of freedom of the press and the executive's duty to protect national security. His Honour found that while the executive government has a legitimate interest in maintaining secrecy in matters of national security and foreign affairs, this interest is not absolute and must be balanced against the public's right to know. The court must be satisfied that the publication would cause actual prejudice to the national interest, and that this prejudice would be serious and significant. In this instance, Mason J concluded that the Commonwealth had not discharged the onus of proving that the proposed publication would cause such prejudice, and therefore, the injunction would not be granted.