Australian court releases judge’s remarks in unprecedented ‘secret prisoner’ trial

first-post-v-2AN AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT has released the sentencing remarks in an unprecedented closed-door trial of an intelligence officer, identified only as “Witness J”, who was convicted in 2019 of a crime that cannot be revealed. The man, who is also known as “Prisoner 123458,” was given a jail sentence in November of 2019. His sentencing came following a closed-door hearing, which was described by a judge as “generally undesirable” and “unusual”. The very existence of the court case came to light only after Witness J filed a lawsuit against the jail in which he was being held, arguing that his treatment was substandard.

Witness J is believed to be in his mid-30s and to have served for many years as an intelligence officer in the Australian military, with a top secret security clearance. He is also believed to have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor with a distinguished service record. But he drew the attention of counterintelligence investigators in 2018, while undergoing a routine re-evaluation of his security clearance status. During that time he was reportedly serving as a civilian in an undisclosed country in Southeast Asia. This period, according to reports, coincided with the deterioration of Witness J’s mental health.

Witness J was eventually jailed in mid-May 2018 and spent a month in solitary confinement. He was then placed in a high-security wing for serious sex offenders at the Alexander Maconochie Centre prison in Canberra. This was not because he was a sex offender, but because it was determined that he would be safer there than in the other wings of the prison. In early 2019, Witness J was sentenced in a closed-door trial, which was held under the secrecy provisions of Australia’s 2004 National Security Information Act. He was released from prison 15 months into his 24-month sentence, after agreeing to plead guilty to security breaches.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) released the sentencing remarks of the judge in Witness J’s case, which had remained secret since November of 2019. According to ABC News, the remarks are heavily redacted in order to comply with restrictions under the National Security Information Act. The redacted document makes clear that Witness J faced a total of five charges. However, the sentencing remarks make no mention of the nature of the charges against him.

In his remarks, the judge in the case, Justice John Burns, mentions that the court had been given a report by Witness J’s doctor, which detailed his deteriorating mental state and his depression. The judge goes on to explain that he took the doctor’s report into account in sentencing Witness J. He argues, however, that despite his illness, the accused was aware of his actions and deliberately chose to conduct himself in a “grossly reckless” manner.

Author: Ian Allen | Research credit: P.C.| Date: 24 April 2023 | Permalink

Unprecedented trial of ‘secret prisoner’ in Australia raises legal questions

Alexander Maconochie CentreAn unprecedented closed-door trial of a man identified only as “Witness J”, who was convicted earlier this year of a crime that cannot be revealed, has raised questions about the relationship between security and the law in Australia. The man, who is also known as “Prisoner 123458”, was sentenced to a jail sentence in February of this year. His sentencing came following a closed-door hearing, which was described by a judge as “generally undesirable” and “unusual”.

Witness J is believed to be in his mid-30s and to have served as an intelligence officer in the Australian military, with a Top Secret security clearance. According to ABC News, he served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and East Timor and had a distinguished service record. But he drew the attention of counterintelligence investigators in 2018, while undergoing a five-year re-evaluation of his security clearance status. During that time he was reportedly serving as a civilian in an undisclosed country in Southeast Asia.

ABC News said that “some anomalies in [Witness J’s] answers” —presumably while he was undergoing a polygraph test— raised further questions about whether “he could be compromised”. This, according to ABC News, coincided with the deterioration of his mental health, which led him to seek “internal help” from his employer on several occasions. Reportedly, his Top-Secret clearance status did not allow him to seek outside professional advice about his condition. Witness J was eventually jailed in mid-May 2018 and spent a month in solitary confinement. He was then placed in a high-security wing for serious sex offenders at the Alexander Maconochie Centre prison in Canberra. This was not because he was a sex offender, but because it was determined that he would be safer there than in the other wings of the prison.

In February of this year, Witness J was sentenced in a closed-door trial, held under the secrecy provisions of Australia’s 2004 National Security Act. Australia’s Attorney General, Christian Porter, told ABC that the information shared in Witness J’s hearing was “of a kind that could endanger the lives or safety of others”. The only reason why records of Witness J’s incarceration have appeared on the public record was because officers of the Australian Federal Police obtained a warrant to search his prison cell in order to confiscate a personal memoir that they allege the prisoner composed about his case during his incarceration.

It is believed that Witness J was released from prison in August of this year, 16 months before completing his sentence. He is not able to speak to the press, or identify himself in public in connection with this case. According to ABC News, he is only allowed to refer to his conviction as having been for “mishandling classified information”. Several experts have commented on the secret trial of Witness J One expert, Bret Walker, a barrister and former independent national security legislation monitor, told “ABC News that the case of Witness J was “a perfectly well-intentioned piece of national security legislation might not be operating in the way one would like”.

Author: Ian Allen | Date: 09 December 2019 | Permalink