South Australian Court of Appeal rules whistleblowers have no immunity for gathering evidence to support public interest disclosures

Boyle v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2024] SASCA 73 

In the much publicised case of Australian Tax Office (ATO) whistleblower Richard Boyle, the South Australian Court of Appeal has found that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act) does not provide whistleblowers with immunity from criminal, civil or administrative liability for actions taken in gathering evidence to support public interest disclosures (PID). 

Read More
Case NotesTash KhanDemocratic Freedoms
Powers of Online Safety Act tested in Federal Court case

eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499

The high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.

Read More
Case NotesTash KhanDemocratic Freedoms
UK High Court rules amendments to Public Order Act unlawful and upholds protest rights

National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181

In an important decision on protest rights in England, the High Court of Justice has found that amendments made by the Secretary of State to the Public Order Act 1986 (‘POA Act’) were unlawful. The amended regulations had the effect of lowering the threshold of police intervention in protests. In its decision, the Court considered four grounds of challenges and accepted two of them. The decision is useful in understanding what is considered to be unlawful and the limitations in circumventing legislative processes.

Read More
Case Notes 15- ProtestTash KhanHousing, Democratic Freedoms