<story><title>Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case</title><url>https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/?gag</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>fblp</author><text>From the article: - The court made this order to:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;- prevent damage to Australia&amp;#x27;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.
These orders are made on the grounds that they are:&lt;p&gt;- necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and&lt;p&gt;- necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. &amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice rather than for political reasons.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>NamTaf</author><text>Cute that you say that we have one of the strongest separations between courts and the government, given what Queensland&amp;#x27;s government has been doing to the court system here. There&amp;#x27;s been a fair bit of press [1],[2] about the friction between the current government and the court system, due to the state government trying to bend the courts to suit their political desires (examples include the election of an allegedly biased chief justice, the VLAD laws).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d agree with you normally, but it seems that the federal government is following the Queensland state government&amp;#x27;s lead in trying to manipulate the courts to their favour. I dearly hope we see some stronger push-back against that though because the separation of courts and government is one of the best things about this country.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-campbell-newman-makes-major-policy-changes/5611970&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.abc.net.au&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;2014-07-21&amp;#x2F;queensland-premier-cam...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-over-carmody-appointment-process-20140613-zs7ds.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brisbanetimes.com.au&amp;#x2F;queensland&amp;#x2F;barrister-quits-o...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case</title><url>https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/?gag</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>fblp</author><text>From the article: - The court made this order to:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;- prevent damage to Australia&amp;#x27;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.
These orders are made on the grounds that they are:&lt;p&gt;- necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and&lt;p&gt;- necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. &amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice rather than for political reasons.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nl</author><text>It seems likely that the individuals named in the order are likely to be brought up in the case.&lt;p&gt;If - as a totally fictional example - allegations were made that the RBA&amp;#x27;s Note Printing division attempted to bribe the head of some fictional nation, that would almost certainly damage Australia&amp;#x27;s international reputation, especially if people within Australia later attempted to cover that up.&lt;p&gt;Does the public&amp;#x27;s right-to-know outweigh that damage? Clearly the court thinks not.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll just leave these links here:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.afr.com/p/national/probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_scandal_mVt5dvqtnWuNl8M4i7kmhM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.afr.com&amp;#x2F;p&amp;#x2F;national&amp;#x2F;probe_sought_on_new_rba_bribe_...&lt;/a&gt; (Note that the Saddam&amp;#x2F;Iraqi link is a separate case)&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/economics/asic/final_report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/ASIC/Final_Report/c23.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.aph.gov.au&amp;#x2F;parliamentary_business&amp;#x2F;committees&amp;#x2F;sena...&lt;/a&gt; - look at page 370</text></comment>