Wikileaks Reveals Super Injunction Blocking Reporting On Massive Australian Corruption Case Involving Leaders Of Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam
from the no-free-press-for-you dept
We've written about the problems of so-called super injunctions in the past (though mainly in the UK). This legal process not only keeps certain details under wraps concerning a lawsuit, but actually forbids the media from reporting on anything related to the case at all. Such a thing would be clear prior restraint and not allowed in the US, but apparently is considered legal in other parts of the world. However, Wikileaks has now revealed what appears to be a super injunction against reporting on a massive corruption case in Australia, involving the leaders of Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, along with people at Australia's central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia:The super-injunction invokes “national security” grounds to prevent reporting about the case, by anyone, in order to “prevent damage to Australia's international relations”. The court-issued gag order follows the secret 19 June 2014 indictment of seven senior executives from subsidiaries of Australia's central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). The case concerns allegations of multi-million dollar inducements made by agents of the RBA subsidiaries Securency and Note Printing Australia in order to secure contracts for the supply of Australian-style polymer bank notes to the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.It's the reasoning given that's most troubling:
The suppression order lists 17 individuals, including "any current or former Prime Minister of Malaysia", “Truong Tan San, currently President of Vietnam", "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (also known as SBY), currently President of Indonesia (since 2004)", "Megawati Sukarnoputri (also known as Mega), a former President of Indonesia (2001–2004) and current leader of the PDI-P political party" and 14 other senior officials and relatives from those countries, who specifically may not be named in connection with the corruption investigation.
The document also specifically bans the publication of the order itself as well as an affidavit affirmed last month by Australia's representative to ASEAN Gillian Bird, who has just been appointed as Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. The gag order effectively blacks out the largest high-level corruption case in Australia and the region.
The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings.It's difficult to see how that's a legitimate reason to completely hide the entire case from public view, when it appears to cover a variety of important matters of which the public should be aware. If some people may be embarrassed about this, even as they're not subject to the charges in the proceedings, then they should easily be able to explain that fact. There are lots of lawsuits that will embarrass some people (even those not directly subject to the case). But we don't hide them when they deal with everyone else. The decision to do it here really smacks of the "high court" / "low court" distinction between the treatment those in power receive vs. what those not in power do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, corruption, free speech, gag order, indonesia, journalism, malaysia, super injunction, vietnam
Companies: rba, reserve bank australia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Secret cases in the US
I have seen multiple references to same. I can not vouch for the integrity of the following source, but it tells a similar story to those I have seen a number of times few times.
"After we came up with 469 missing criminal cases and 65 missing civil cases over the five-year period, we presented the intake records clerk with a list of the missing docket numbers. He entered a dozen or so in his computer and confirmed that the cases were completely sealed from the public — and were being kept off the docket.
"The case you specified is SEALED and you are not authorized to see it," the computer on clerk Mike Darby's desk told him.
That's because only certain docket clerks — Darby is not one of them — have access to the section of the computer system used for docketing hidden cases.
And where do the case files of these super-secret cases go? In D.C.'s District Court, they go to what everyone in the courthouse calls "the vault," though they declined to elaborate."
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2 006/finding-hidden-dockets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Secret cases in the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ahem
AS opposed to the damage caused by a failed cover up - which is ALWAYS bigger. (There's a name for that effect isn't there...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ahem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Secret cases in the US
I believe that the numbers referred to only apply to the cases in the DC District, though it is likely that there would be more such instances in DC per capita than in other areas. But it has clearly been going on for quite some time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
please note that tinyurl does not seem to work on this humongous URL, and I am unaware of any other mechanism for shortening same. So I am afraid that the interested reader must copy and paste.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rj a&uact=8&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent .cgi%3Farticle%3D1249%26context%3Dcalifornialawreview&ei=BCbZU6imCsKyyATioYHgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGr Cc-xx16ZegLL91fxwZ5IVI1kOA&sig2=-5botND3AUPW_mtCaPznKg&bvm=bv.71778758,d.aWw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now that the cat is out of the bag...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Secret cases in the US - nope
[ link to this | view in thread ]
think back a few months to who was in the press over dressing in Nazi uniforms. now think of what new law has been implemented in the EU and who has just filed with Google to 'be forgotten'. i'll bet what you like that he was the main reason it happened and the guy 'who won the case' was just the figure head!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://tinyurl.com/lp6zxem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Secret cases in the US - nope
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ahem
Because they're playing with other people's money?
Really... the only risk to them is having their political reputation damaged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interestingly though since the order is ONLY from a Supreme court in one State it has absolutely no bearing on ANY other state's system especially when ALL communications is specifically a Federal jurisdiction.
therefore
"The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia." is basically voidable and untenable. The courts in Victoria have tried this before, the most famous one being an order stopping a TV series from airing Australia Wide. That never worked and only stopped Victorians from watching the series (Underbelly) or purchasing the DVDs within Victoria. Interestingly Victorians found a way around that stupidity by torrents etc. whodathunkit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not like people didn't know about it anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/social-media-users-could-be-charged-for-sharing-wikileaks-stor y-20140730-zye0b.html
The stupid IT BURNS!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Secret legal proceedings, hiding facts, protecting reputations.... these are not good reasons.
At some point perhaps they should figure out the more they try to hide by gripping it tightly the more slips from their fingers as we wonder what they are hiding and peek.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Of course the series distorted the facts for "dramatic" reasons anyway.
The ban was useless. It was televised and sold everywhere else in Australia. I bought the series and mailed to my brother-in-law who lives in Melbourne. I really doubt I was the only person in Australia that did that or something similar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The following dramatisation is based on truth..except for the 99% of it that isn't"
Though you have to admit the nudity was ubiquitous in it ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beware of the 1.1 million bidder
Payoff or worms would eat up your everything.....
There is always another 1.1 million bidder; and you are on your own then.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aussie Corruption
[ link to this | view in thread ]