Invasion of Privacy: Australia's First Telephone Tapping Prosecutions
| Author | A. Cirulis |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X6600200109 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
132
Federal
Law
Review
[VOLUME
2
following. Ahigh degree
of
public interest
is
involved in the effective
administration
of
justice. That aparty should be denied relief
or
should suffer punishment
or
judgment for lack
of
evidence when
that evidence
is
in existence
is
certainly contrary to the public interest.
In
some cases this might be the result
of
sustaining the privilege
claimed. Such an eventuality could be tolerated only in those special
cases where there
is
acompeting public interest involved
of
even
more compelling importance and where production
of
the document
would materially prejudice
that
interest.
No
doubt, documents
properly immune from production are usually in the custody
of
a
government department but the mere fact that documents are in
government custody and not normally made available to the public
cannot support immunity. Where therefore it
is
sought to support
immunity by reference to
an
opinion the nature
of
the documents
in question and the nature
of
the public injury which
is
feared should
always appear.
The decision
of
Smithers J. in this case has clearly established the
existence and application
of
the reserve power
of
the Court in the A.C.T.
to
safeguard the public interest from prejudice arising from the suppres-
sion
of
adocument, where
an
objection has been taken by aMinister to
the document's production. As the Australian Capital Territory
is
the
seat
of
Commonwealth Government and the source
of
most Common-
wealth ministerial decisions the clear unambiguous decision
of
Smithers
upholding the principles
of
Robinson's case
is
to be welcomed.
B. MORRIS
INVASION
OF
PRIVACY:
AUSTRALIA'S FIRST
TELEPHONE TAPPING PROSECUTIONS
The Supreme Court
of
the Australian Capital Territory has recently
completed the hearing
of
the first prosecutions under section
51
of
the
Telephonic Communication (Interception) Act
1960
(Cth). The first
,Section
5,
insofar as is relevant for the purposes
of
this note provides as follows
-'
5.-(1.)
Aperson shall
not-(a)
intercept;
(b) authorize, suffer
or
permit another
person to intercept;
or
(c)
do any act
or
thing that will enable him
or
another person
to
intercept, acommunication passing over the telephone system.
Penalty:
Five
hundred pounds
or
imprisonment for two years. Aperson shall not divulge
or
com-
municate to another person,
or
make use
of
or
record, any information obtained by
intercepting acommunication passing over the telephone system ...
Penalty:
Five
hundred pounds
or
imprisonment for two years.'
Section 3
of
the Act contains the following relevant
definitions-"
,communication'
includes conversation, message and signal, and any
part
of
aconversation, message
or
signal;
'the
Department'
means the Postmaster-General's
Department;
'the
tele-
phone system 'means the telephone system controlled by the Department." Section
4
of
the Act provides, inter
alia-'
4.-(1.)
For
the purposes
of
this Act,
but
subject
to the next succeeding sub-section, interception
of
acommunication passing over the
telephone system consists
of
listening to
or
recording, by any means, such acom-
munication in its passage over the telephone system without the knowledge
of
the
person making the communication. (2.) Where aperson lawfully
on
premises to
which atelephone service
is
provided, by means
of
atelephone instrument
or
other
device
that
is
part
of
that
service-(a)
listens
to
or
records acommunication passing
over atelephone line that is
part
of
that
service, being acommunication
that
is
being
To continue reading
Request your trial