Bernard Collaery: The spy case that ignited an Australian secrecy row

For a decade, Bernard Collaery has been at the centre of the extraordinary legal saga in Australia.

It calls for one of the country’s biggest diplomatic scandals : a tale of agents, oil and claims of greed.

An esteemed attorney, Mr Collaery have been staring down any jail sentence regarding helping to expose allegations of Australian wrongdoing in East Timor.

But last week, the case reached an unexpected summary.

“The whole elements reads like some type of bad novel, ” says senior lawyer Geoffrey Watson.

It all started in 2004, when Australia allegedly bugged the government offices associated with East Timor, one of its most impoverished nearby neighbours.

It did so to gain the upper hand in negotiations over lucrative oil and gas reserves — and it walked aside with a sweet offer.

“This is the most appalling and terrible matter that Australia offers ever done… to another nation, ” stated Mr Watson, a director of Australia’s Centre for General public Integrity.

“And it is the most venal of most sins because we did it for money, ” he told the BBC.

When Eastern Timor found out in 2012 what Australia had done, it was furious.

Mr Collaery and his client — an Australian secret agent known only because Witness K – were the ones which told East Timor, prosecutors later supposed.

The tiny country went to Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague in the Netherlands to pressure Quotes into reopening negotiations.

But as The Hague court prepared to listen to the case, Australian law enforcement controversially raided Mr Collaery’s home and legal practice in 2013.

A brief made by Mr Collaery : who was acting intended for East Timor within their case – was seized, despite it being susceptible to legal privilege.

“Seeing any investigation of a lawyer intended for pursuing a case is absolutely extraordinary, ” says Australian constitutional law expert Rebecca Ananian-Welsh.

Authorities also searched Witness K’s home and confiscated their passport, blocking your pet from travelling to holland to give evidence.

“This had nothing regarding national security, ” Mr Collaery stated at the time. “It had been to find out what the case we had against all of them [was], and also to hobble our witness. ”

This only deepened the row with East Timor. Its then excellent minister, Xanana Gusmao, called it “unconscionable and unacceptable conduct”.

“It is usually behaviour that is not worthy of a close friend and neighbour or of the great nation such as Australia, ” he or she said.

The case stalled designed for five years because the rare charges associated with intelligence. This intended prosecutors required the particular permission of Australia’s attorney general to proceed.

However came two major developments, observers state. Australia appointed a new attorney general, Christian Porter, in 2017, and signed a new and fairly negotiated deal with East Timor over the oil and gas reserves in 2018.

Within weeks, Mr Porter gave his blessing for charges to be laid against Mister Collaery and See K.

Mr Collaery was accused associated with conspiring to reveal classified information and sharing it with journalists. He chose to fight his situation.

Witness K was also charged with one particular offence, but avoided jail in 2021 after pleading responsible.

The decision to prosecute provoked uproar in Australia’s legal fraternity plus elsewhere. One MEGAPIXEL said: “It seems that with the diplomacy out of the way, it’s time to bury the bodies. ”

It also drew ire in East Timor – several commanders including Mr Gusmao blasted the proceed and promised to provide evidence for the pair in court.

Yet Mr Porter denied it was a political decision, saying he was just following an independent advice of prosecutors to say yes to the case.

“External factors played no part in my consideration, inch he said at the time.

Mr Watson says the decision was lawfully unsound and “politically stupid” – it could only see an uncomfortable chapter for the authorities publicly rehashed.

Dr Ananian-Welsh also finds it “amazing” that it proceeded.

“Yes, he shattered the law… [but] sometimes people break the law in the interest from the law, ” the lady says.

“We failed to necessarily need to roll out a red carpet and give them medals… it just simply wasn’t in the public interest to investigate, let alone prosecute them. ”

Several in the legal professions believe it was an attempt to limit embarrassment for Australia.

However the government insisted Mr Collaery’s trial ought to be held in key to protect national security.

It sought in order to back up that discussion with evidence someone said was so sensitive that not even Mr Collaery or his lawyers could view it – just the choosing judge.

Their lawful argument stretched for years with no ruling.

“I know of nothing which is a comparable example of shutting the doors of open up justice to the Australian public. This is a shameful episode, ” Mr Watson says.

The secrecy deprived the public of the opportunity to scrutinise the government’s actions in Dili and impinged upon the procedural fairness provided to Mr Collaery, advocates say.

“What’s interesting about this is the fact that everyone kind of understands what happened, ” states Dr Ananian-Welsh.

“So you’d have to ask yourself, how much about that operation really still needs to be held secret to protect national security? ”

After 4 years and quite a few hearings, Mr Collaery was finally due to face trial within October this year.

But for the first time since the investigation began in 2013, the party responsible for the bugging has ceased to be in government, after losing an political election in May.

Last week Australia’s new attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, withdrew support for the prosecution. He said he previously given “regard to the national security, the national interest and the administration of justice”.

“This is an extraordinary case, ” he or she said.

Legal professionals said the intervention was extraordinary due to the fact attorneys general — who are part of the govt – cannot be seen to meddle with the judiciary.

“Political involvement in a prosecution doesn’t sit quite correct with me. But this is actually the extreme scenario that needed it, ” argues Dr Ananian-Welsh.

East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta told the Guardian that “wisdom and justness have prevailed”.

There are now requires Witness K’s certainty to be quashed great passport finally returned.

“Australia is higher, stronger, than a small punishment of a great man who talked his conscience, inch Mr Ramos-Horta told ABC News.

Within a statement, Mr Collaery said he had been buoyed by the community’s support for their case and “for ethical values”.

“This decision will allow myself to move forward with my life and legal practice, ” this individual said.

Yet cases like Mister Collaery’s have a detrimental effect on whistleblowing, states the Human Right Law Centre’s Kieran Pender.

Not all whistleblowers result in court, but research shows most suffer other ill effects – such as being bullied, demoted, fired, or maybe sued.

“Given the potential consequences of speaking up, many Australians are staying quiet in the face of wrongdoing, inch Mr Pender says.

He states laws which purport to provide protection to whistleblowers need change.

But the biggest signal Australia may send to whistleblowers is to stop prosecuting them, Mr Pender says.

David McBride, a lawyer who revealed alleged war criminal offenses by Australian pushes in Afghanistan, and Richard Boyle, who else exposed unethical debt collection practices within the Australian Tax Office, are facing charges.

“It is truly remarkable that this only legal motion taken to date pertaining to Australia’s espionage towards Timor-Leste, the potential battle crimes of Aussie soldiers in Afghanistan and misconduct within the Australian Taxation Office is for the whistleblowers to be put on trial, ” Mr Pender says.

“It must not be a crime to expose wrongdoing. ”