The prosecution of witness K, a former intelligence agent, and his lawyer Bernard Collaery has raised considerable outrage. At issue is the right of the public to be given details of wrongful and shameful behaviour by the Australian government. In this case, it is alleged Australia bugged the offices of East Timor's prime minister in 2004 in an operation designed to betray a close and trusting nation, and to gain an unfair advantage in commercial dealings over gas and oil resources.

Lawyer Bernard Collaery addresses the media outside the Supreme Court in Canberra this month. Credit:AAP

The perception is that the prosecutions are a payback for disclosure of information that has undoubtedly humiliated Australia in the eyes of the world. Secondly, the perception is that the shrouding of the forthcoming trials in secrecy is designed to cover up further shameful revelations.

The contrary arguments to these perceptions appear to be:

Prosecution is always justified where a security officer discloses classified or secret information, no matter the circumstances;

Prosecution is necessary to deter others from acting in a similar manner; and

National security secrecy in the trial is necessary to prevent the disclosure of information harmful to Australia’s economic and international interests.

The problem with these arguments is that no one from the government or the security agencies has actually articulated these propositions. Nor has the government outlined how they play out against the broader public belief that the prosecutions are contrary to the public interest. In the present matter, there was always a discretion not to prosecute.