Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police had a sharp disagreement about the extent of confidential briefings given to The Australian newspaper in order to persuade it to hold off publication of its scoop in a joint anti terrorism operation, the Melbourne Magistrates Court heard this morning.
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Fontana of the Victoria Police, then in charge of counter terrorism, said he had been “dumb founded” when informed that the Australian Federal Police had told reporter Cameron Stewart that a terrorist attack was being planned on Australian soil — a fact he had not previously known.
In the third day of the committal hearing against Simon Artz, the man accused of being Stewart’s source, the court heard evidence that senior Victorian Police were dismayed that the Australian Federal Police had chosen to give Stewart a full briefing, but felt they had been “trumped” because a Memorandum of Understanding between the forces gave responsibility for media management to the AFP.
Under cross examination by Artz’s counsel, Mr Bill Stuart, Fontana said that on 31 July, he had been told by an Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police that Stewart had been briefed. The Federal Police Assistant Commissioner told him that Stewart had known only of the international side of Operation Neath, not that a domestic attack was planned.
Fontana agreed that he had said words to the effect of “For God’s sake you didn’t tell him did you?” and that the reply had been “Yes I did.”
Fontana told the court “I was a little bit dumbfounded.”
Fontana said that later, when The Australian published news of the raid, he and other members of the Victoria Police had been upset at the extent and detail of the information in the report.
He agreed with Mr Stuart that it seemed a serious effort had been made to give Stewart a very lengthy briefing, containing a high level of detail.
However, he acknowledged that the disclosure had been sanctioned, and that dealing with the leak, under the Memorandum of Agreement, had been the job of the AFP.
The court also heard that on 31 July 2009, the day after the police became aware of the leak to The Australian, Artz had filed an information report saying that he had met Stewart the previous day, but that not all the police involved were fully informed about this until later.
Up until the leak to Stewart, Victoria Police had advocated holding off conducting raids until the 11 August in the hope of gathering more evidence about individuals.
Other members of the joint operation, including the AFP, had advocated 4 August. After the leak became known, it was “a factor” in the decision to act on the earlier date. The Director of Public Prosecutions had told police that sufficient information had been gathered to support charges against the suspected terrorists some days before the decision was made.
Fontana agreed with Mr Stuart that at the time of the leak to Stewart “hundreds” of people in the various forces involved in the joint operation had known about it.
Earlier, Deputy Commisisoner Peter Drennan of the AFP told the court that he had been present in the room on 30 July when Acting Commissioner Tony Negus had conducted telephone negotiations with the then editor of The Australian, Paul Whittaker. Negus had been trying to persuade Whittaker not to publish news of the counter terrorism operation in the next day’s paper.
Drennan said he had not been able to hear Whittaker’s side of the conversation, but had heard Negus given Whittaker information, including that lives would be at risk if he published.
It was a “robust” conversation, but not a shouting match, he said.”It was a matter of enormous significance and great concern…it was a conversation I would expect two senior people to have in these circumstances,” he said.
“””Fontana told the court “I was a little bit dumbfounded.””” Not half as much as the hapless citizens of Victoria.
Paul Whittaker did discuss with Negus what was in it for the Australian. If the paper held off on reporting the information Stewart had about the international side of Operation Neath. Is it a stretch to write? Australian Editor Paul Whiteaker perceived his bargaining position was improved the moment he was told not just the months of work already put in but the lives of police and others would be at greater risk if the Australian paper publiched the some what limited information Stuart had collected! We are reading about how ethics or the lack of them are intertwined with getting the front page story. Edward James .
@EDWARD – Makes you believe there might be something ‘fishy’ re what the Murdoch people have been engaged in overseas? Could it/does it happen here? Of course not! What a shocking thing to say? Remember the ‘document’ that just happened to end up at the Oz re something from the Dept of Foreign Affairs? Remember Downer blaming Andrew Wilke? Until Andrew said that he didn’t, and the only people who’d have access would be someone in Downer’s Office? Ahm!
Will there be a far reaching inquiry? Probably not!
LIZ45 The news that the British Suns, Jamie Pyatt has been arrested http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16103268 . Pleases me somewhat because I am biased! I have experienced first hand how “it” works in NSW. Being told by people with a vested interest in not publishing what I am alleging, because they claim it is defamatory. Has after several years of my information being published in our local papers, been exposed as self serving garbage. Telling me my information is defamatory without using the word allegedly is just lazy perhaps paid people have been directed to deny me oxygen. The information I have published for years http://bit.ly/EJ_PNewsAds
where I name names and supply photos wont be defamatory until a court (and it is very unlikely) actually identifies it as such. Much of it has been out there well over two years. Yes I understand the truth is not always a shield against the sword of defamation or injurious language. At some point thinking people will start to conduct their own public inquiry using the WWW as a venue for the peoples court of public opinion to review what so many of us have first hand experience off. Edward James 0243419140.
Why is it that so many people who can afford internet access to post their comments signed with something other than their birth name, are not able to afford a phone call at around fifty cents to 0243419140? I ask this because so many pundits and apparchicks all over Crikey and elswhere have something to say this way and that, yet my allagations are still being ignored. Five dead in a ditch at the bottom of Piles Creek Somersby NSW. Be brave phone the number and tell me I am wrong to publicly question the personal values of your and my elected rerpresentatives at Federal State and Local government levels!