Thread by @Consortiumnews

We'll be reporting live on this thread from the courtroom in Canberra in the FOI case of @SMaurizi and @dfat.

She has requested communications about #JulianAssange

@SMaurizi @dfat Court in session. @BarnsGreg representing @SMaurizi who is online from Italy. 23 pages have come through to the court. Miss Logan (witness is attendance) & is available for questioning.

@SMaurizi @dfat The open hearing will end with submissions. The magistrate is likely to speak with Miss Logan privately.

#MauriziandDFAT

@SMaurizi @dfat Greg Barns: Maurizi has been reporting on the #Assange case for many years & requesting documents from DFAT, with little success. There was an internal review in 2018 & further efforts made in 2021. We ask you to review docs & decided on what can be released.

@SMaurizi @dfat It has been suggested by DFAT lawyer that magistrate talk to Miss Logan privately first, She is an experienced DFAT diplomat & can explain DFAT's position. Miss Logan will take an affirmation.

@SMaurizi @dfat Greg Barns (GB) to Miss Logan (ML).
GB: You are aware that this matter concerns freedom of the press.

ML: Yes

GB: Tell us about "personal notes" mentioned in Point 6 of yr affidavit.

My notes over the years dealing w/ the case

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Are you familiar w/ the case?
ML: Broadly

GB: You deal w/ sensitive info
ML: Yes

GB: what does "substantial" mean in that context?

ML: Significant impact on Australia.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: If the information is confidential but not sensitive, is yr concern about confidentiality itself, or damage caused by revealing names or info?

ML: There is an implication that information is communicated in confidence & should remain so.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Communications re #Assange & Sweden: do you remember this material?
ML: No, but I'm aware it exists.

GB: Looking for doc relating to "WGAD" - working group on arbitrary detention. Do you agree their response was public info?

ML Yes

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: You say confidentiality doesn't diminish over time? Not even 15 years?

ML: Correct. This matter is before the Home Secretary & Australian official have made statements recently so this matter is still current.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: You refer to the matter of "loss of trust". We're not dealing w/ a terrorist situation.

ML: Divulging info you request would have an impact in other areas, such as "travel advice"(?)

@SMaurizi @dfat ML: Were we to share info in this matter that would go to our reliability "to reveal just the right amount of info" regarding other countries. This concerns US & UK mainly.

GB: You're making a broad point here. This case has nothing to do w/ travel advice or a terrorism.

Yes

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: His a robust relationship w/ US & UK.
ML: Yes, we do have a robust relationship w/ ou 5 Eyes partners.

GB: Para 29 of yr Affidavit: You say the info should not be released, even if subject is public info?

ML: Yes, significant damage could manifest with SOME of the documents

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Para 33 Affidavit: When you say "in confidence" you mean confidence is implied?

ML: Yes, even if there is no classification marked, in confidence is implied.

GB: How do you know?

ML: From experience. It's usually implied that these comms are not for public release.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Referring to coms w/ UK FCO officer. W/ this kind of comm, do you err on the side of caution & redact all?

ML: there is an implication that comms between diplomats are private. There is also concern for Mr #Assange's privacy.

@SMaurizi @dfat ML: #Assange declined consular assistance.
GB: That's a matter of much debate.

GB: If an individual authorised the release of info, you might still not release them?

ML: That's correct

GB: You seen the consent form #Assange have to @SMaurizi?

ML: No

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: You do understand that you can't just refuse everything? You have to have justification.

ML: We have justification.

GB: Would the UK tell you if material had been released by other parties?

ML: Not necessarily

@SMaurizi @dfat No cross-examination of Miss Logan. Both hers and @SMaurizi's affidavit have been submitted. The magistrate will close the tribunal to the public while he speaks privately to Miss Logan (witness for DFAT). Back in approx 5 mins.

@SMaurizi @dfat It is not certain that we'll be let back into the courtroom but we are waiting online to hear from the court.

@SMaurizi @dfat Lawyer for @SMaurizi has adduced that @DFAT's default action is redact all, even when communications not marked confidential, or labelled w/ any other classification - while the magistrate has stated that the court needs to be "flexible". We are unlikely to have a ruling today.

@SMaurizi @dfat Consent from #Assange for release of personal information ignored by Australia's @dfat. According to their spokesperson in court, policy is perennially hush-hush when it concerns Five Eyes partners.

https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/1535064028548337664

@SMaurizi @dfat We have been re-admitted to Australia's AAT FOI courtroom in Canberra, where journalist @SMaurizi is attempting to have @dfat communications released in relation to #JulianAssange.

View on lawyer @BarnsGreg going through papers. No audio as yet.

@SMaurizi @dfat The magistrate has been speaking privately with @dfat spokesperson, Miss Logan, about why it is necessary to refuse FOI requests made by Italian journalist @SMaurizi in relation to the Australian journalist #JulianAssange.

@SMaurizi @dfat Hearing resumes. Presiding "deputy president" has no matters to raise w/ @BarnsGreg.

GB: In relation to S 33 a & b, the mere possibility of damage is insufficient. There has to be real justification. We spoke w/ the @dfat rep about matters that already public & they refuse info.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Para 5. 3 7 of the guidelines summarises the proposition we have put to you. Objectives of the Act are multi-faceted but in this case there is strong public interest regarding freedom of speech.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: Regarding damage, it must be more than an assumption or allegation. Re "in confidence" p.44 of T documents, this is the consent form provided by #Assange to @SMaurizi.

Maurizi's affidavit - also submitted in other countries such as UK - emphasises public interest.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB Decisions of Justice Kenny in case of Whittiger (?) re "could be reasonably expected to... [cause damage]. The test requires a high degree of certainty & is related to the time of decision, not when FOI request made.

@SMaurizi @dfat GB: We would that it is consistent with the Act, that @dfat must clearly demonstrate any damage that could be caused by releasing this information now.

Deputy president agrees that blanket refusal is unacceptable.

@SMaurizi @dfat Mr Swan (for DFAT): Miss Logan is amply qualified to speak on these matters. In relation to a decision in Summers, starting at 9.1 - a Mr Todd was in the same position as Miss Logan. Both have extensive experience (of saying nothing?). Tribunal doesn't have nuanced understanding

@SMaurizi @dfat Mr Swan (for DFAT) citing judgement of Justice Kenny. Miss Logan expresses a clear concern about disclosure & Australia's reliability. You have seen that some of the the material here re #Assange is sensitive & might damage international relations.

@SMaurizi @dfat Mr Swan (for DFAT) Miss Logan said #Assange is awaiting a decision from @pritipatel on whether he will be extradited. This is very topical.

DP to GB: You mentioned statements made by @Albo. What are they?

GB: That PM & FM both agree the #Assange case must be resolved ASAP

@SMaurizi @dfat Mr Snow (for @dfat). We accept the public interest issue & for that reason we think non-disclosure is preferable

Last point made by @dfat inaudible but to do w/ good relations.

DP responds: "That might be one of the most difficult of your submissions". Decision will come soon

@SMaurizi @dfat Hearing ends.