Johnston: I too am baffled …

GERALDINE ALLAN
#13 John. I too am baffled. My reading of the judgment and post Evans J. decision discussions, is that the Supreme Court permanent stay is because, in simple terms, Mr Johnston wears two hats, 1) Police Commissioner and 2) Secretary of the Department of Police and Emergency Management (DPEM) and with those two responsibilities comes his own secrecy discretion, not obligation.

Apparently there is some conflict between the obligations of the two roles. My reading of it is that in one instance the Commissioner has by virtue of his office and as a public officer, a (contractual not moral) duty to keep secret matters under investigation and, as Secretary of DPEM and/or Commissioner he can where in his assessment it is appropriate under his obligations as both the Secretary of the DPEM and the Commissioner of Police, communicate with members of the Government, in particular, the Minister for Police and the Premier.

Now, here is the crunch or punch line — when and where it suits the mind of the Commissioner/Secretary, he can disclose “official secrets”, even if the subject of those “secrets” is also the person/member of organisation to whom he discloses them, eg., in this instance the government.

Whether or not the disclosures are/were appropriate has not been tested, because the 05/08/09 Evans’ decision confirms that discretion about disclosure was available to the defendant.

That’s my take on it. If the public perception of this outcome is correct, there exists a need for some quick parliamentary amendments to existing legislation because a totally unacceptable situation exists, as the law currently stands —that is if the published Evans J. interpretation is correct.

So, we have to wait until the 2nd. September, 2009, to see if the Crown will challenge the ruling.

This comment appears at the end of this article HERE. Comment HERE