This article is more than 9 months old

This article is more than 9 months old

The Australian Capital Territory’s justice minister, Shane Rattenbury, has slammed the federal government for the “disturbing” and “extraordinary” secrecy it imposed on the prosecution and imprisonment of a mystery inmate facing unknown charges.

Rattenbury said the secrecy was such that even he, as justice minister, had no knowledge of the case until recently.

“I am deeply disturbed by the extraordinary levels of secrecy surrounding the ‘Witness J’ case: secrecy that is a direct result of the commonwealth government’s apparent growing disregard for the principles of open justice and a robust democracy,” Rattenbury said.

Mystery prisoner held in Canberra jail after secret conviction was raided by AFP over memoir Read more

“It is disturbing that Canberrans, along with other Australians, only learned about this case after the fact due to the restrictive commonwealth legislation.”

“I include myself in this group – despite my role as minister in a territory government, I was not advised in relation to this issue.”

Last year, a man – understood to be a former military intelligence officer – was prosecuted on secret charges in closed courts last year, leading to his imprisonment in the ACT’s Alexander Maconochie Centre. The man’s identity has been kept secret, as has is background and the nature of the charges.

The secrecy is imposed by commonwealth orders, which even the general manager of the ACT’s prison had not seen. The sensitivity around the case was such that the inmate was restricted in his communicating with family and friends.

The Australian federal police had also asked the prison to alert it if he tried to receive “unusual visitors”. When the prison did alert the AFP to a potential visit by a Canberra author, Robert Macklin, it conducted raids on the inmate’s cell and his brother’s home, before temporarily freezing his email and phone communications.

Macklin had planned to visit to help the man publish a memoir about his time in prison.

Rattenbury said that the commonwealth’s attitude towards such cases was a “clear erosion of the principles of open justice”.

“Canberrans, and Australians, deserve better,” he said.

“I am also concerned that we’re seeing more and more cases of this kind. This only highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny of the role of the federal agencies and their oversight of law enforcement agencies under the auspices of minister for home affairs Peter Dutton, and the commonwealth attorney general Christian Porter.”

The secrecy around the case has also prompted strong criticism from senior legal and political figures.

Author who tried to help mystery prisoner publish memoir hits out at secret trials Read more

Anthony Whealy, a former NSW supreme court judge, said it appeared to be a “complete abandonment of open justice” and questioned what it meant for the future of the justice system.

The former ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope said he was stunned and appalled by the case, while Macklin, the author who tried to visit the inmate, hit out at what he said was a “secret trial”.

Stanhope also criticised Rattenbury and the Labor-Greens government for allowing its courts and prison systems to be used in such a secretive way.

The Law Council of Australia, the country’s peak body for the legal profession, said open justice was “fundamental” to fair trials and renewed its calls for a widespread review of commonwealth secrecy laws.

The existence of the case was only revealed this month, when a dispute between the inmate and prison authorities about the man’s memoir reached the ACT supreme court. The inmate had asked the court to review the decisions of the ACT government to tip off the AFP and to restrict his communications.

He lost that application and was ordered to pay costs. The judgment was released but contained no detail about the man’s identity, his crimes or his background.

It is understood the ACT government is yet to make a decision on whether to pursue costs.

Rattenbury said the ACT justice system and independent judiciary acted in accordance with the relevant legislation while handling the case.

“This case, including matters relating to non-disclosure of identity and detailers were governed by commonwealth law and applied to specific facts by a fully independent member of the judiciary.”