The
occupation of a person under suspicion of leaking confidential Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) documents has been revealed.
In the Court of Appeal in Wellington today, Justices
permitted media to say the individual, known as Person A, was a
clerical assistant. There are strict suppression orders around the
person's identity. Person A was not in court, but was represented by
lawyer Jason McHerron.
Suppression orders have been put in place around the
employment history of Person A, their name, gender and any other
identifying details.
Mr McHerron said the occupation of Person A had not
specifically been suppressed in previous hearings, but an issue could
arise over whether it would identify his client.
There had been speculation a diplomat had leaked the cabinet reports to Labour MP Phil Goff.
Mr Goff last year released several confidential documents which embarrassed the Government during its controversial restructuring of MFAT.
The documents showed senior diplomats were strongly
opposed to the cost-cutting plan to close embassies and that the
Government ordered chief executive John Allen to revise it.
Paula Rebstock, former head of the Commerce Commission, was appointed to find the source of the leak.
Mr McHerron today asked for the source documents which led to the allegation so Person A could "corroborate [their] denial."
"[Person A] is in a position of having to disprove the allegations".
He was not sure what the source documents would
reveal, but they would allow his client to "verify or contradict" what
the documents showed.
However, Crown lawyer Una Lagose said Person A had
been told "precisely what's in there [the source documents]", which
would not restrict their ability to respond to the allegations.
Forensic analysis of the
organisation's email and document management system could include
material the commissioner does not want revealed, she said.
She
said while the State Services Commissioner did intend to make the final
report into the leak public, there was no intention to name Person A.
All interested parties would be given the final report with notice of the release date, she said.
The Justices asked Mr McHerron to discuss with the Crown which exact documents he wanted.
Mr
McHerron also argued Ms Rebstock needed to keep her suspicions out of
her report because they were not in the inquiry's terms of reference.
There was no evidence to support her suspicion, he said.
Person
A is suspected of leaking the documents, but today Mr McHerron said the
whole question around the case is "whether suspicion has a place in Ms
Rebstock's report".
One of the terms of reference
"required an investigation of relevant facts on the possible
unauthorised disclosure of three cabinet papers. As well as information
relating to those papers," Mr McHerron said.
Mr McHerron said there was no evidence his client had leaked the documents.
"So why go on and raise a suspicion? When the investigation comes up with nothing then it should fall away."
However the Justices said an investigator must look at all of the evidence and draw a conclusion.
"In the end it's her [Ms Rebstock's] conclusion. How can you run an inquiry and not draw a conclusion?
"She's entitled to say its black, or its white, but she's equally entitled to say its grey."
The Justices reserved their decision.
3 News
No comments:
Post a Comment