O'Malley v Keelty, Australian Federal Police Commissioner

I await your advice in due course.' 11 The enclosures involving the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government consisted of a photograph of a computer screen. In his letter of 8 September 2003 to that Minister, Mr O'Malley said: 'I am also attaching for your deliberation a photograph which demonstrates my computer at the old Department of Industry Science & Technology was systematically hacked in 1994. Various versions of this photograph exist.' 12 The photograph is said to demonstrate that within minutes the computer was logged on to different servers. That is certainly not self-evident and I am unable to see how the photograph demonstrates that Mr O'Malley's computer was systematically hacked in 1994. 13 In his letter to Mr Blick, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, of 8 September 2003, Mr O'Malley said as follows: 'On Thursday 4 September, Mr Kurt Hippe of Advanced Investigations, Blacktown, Sydney conducted a debugging exercise at the above address. Within the telegraph pole, Mr Hippe found an intercept wire which should not have been there and which was severed inside the last six months.

He is of the view that this wire explains why the Telstra technician who had come to put a second line into my home in October/November 1998 had to call out the area manager to get clearance to do the job. The technician at the time said the job was too big and required clearance. Note the wiring for the second line would be approximately the same length if not less than the wiring for the first line. Wiring for the first line would have been installed during the construction phase of my home before the gyprocking and this would have been in December 1992.

After phoning Mr Hippe's office twice this morning to discuss his report I was unable to speak to him. … I decided to advise you immediately rather than wait for his report.

Could you please advise did your office sanction an intercept to be put on my line as far back as December 1992 during the initial pre-wiring phase, and if so, please advise of the reasons. If not, please advise what investigations you intend conducting to determine why this intercept was placed on my line.' 14 It is significant that in that letter, Mr O'Malley was inquiring of the Inspector-General as to whether his office had sanctioned an intercept and whether that office intended to conduct any investigations. The response came on the same day, a matter to which Mr O'Malley attaches significance in comparing the response from the Commissioner to the letter of 11 September. The letter from Mr Blick relevantly said: 'This office has no authority to sanction the interception of people's telephones.

The intelligence agency that may, under certain circumstances, obtain a warrant from the Commonwealth Attorney-General to intercept domestic telecommunications is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). …

Perhaps more relevant to your concerns, however, is that the technology that allows ASIO to intercept telephone services does not involve the use of intercept wire in telegraph poles or, indeed, any direct access to the premises of the subscriber or their immediate location.

There must, therefore, be some other explanation for the presence of the wire that Mr Hippe has discovered. If, when you receive his report, you still believe that someone has illegally tapped your telephone, I would recommend that you provide the police with the report and any other evidence you may have.' 15 Having received no response to his letter of 11 September to the Commissioner, Mr O'Malley wrote again on 18 September, relevantly saying: 'I refer to my letter of 11 September which was delivered in person to an officer from your Office at approximately 3.35 pm on 11 September which dealt with an intercept wire found on my telephone line among other things.

The delay from your Office in responding to this letter is at the least very strange, is most perplexing and indeed somewhat incomprehensible given the gravity of the criminal offence that the letter referred to. This delay is in stark contrast to the immediate response from Mr Blick, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, given that my letter to him of 8 September was handed to his secretary at 4.00pm of the 8 September. A copy of his letter was attached to my letter to you of 11 September.' 16 The response ultimately received by Mr O'Malley to his correspondence was a letter dated 9 October 2003 from a federal agent described as 'Co-ordinator OMC'. After apologising for the delay in responding to the earlier letter, the letter of 9 October 2003 said: 'I have noted in your letter to other departments and Ministers that you have mentioned an "intercept wire" connected to your home. With reference to the letter you received from Mr Blick of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Office dated 8 September 2003, I can confirm that the AFP (like ASIO), do not use "Intercept Wires" as part of our investigational methodologies. Because of this I am unable to help you further with this matter.

If you have any further concerns regarding this issue, I am of the understanding that Telstra would be able to assist you in ascertaining exactly what telephone lines and associated technologies are connected with your residence.' 17 It may be a fair observation that the letter of 9 October 2003 does not fairly respond to the letter of 18 September 2003. In that latter letter reference was made to the gravity of the criminal offence that the earlier letter referred to. That may indicate to a reader that Mr O'Malley was in fact complaining about an offence. The letter of 9 October 2003 appears to be a response on the basis that Mr O'Malley was inquiring as to whether the Australian Federal Police were responsible for the intercept wires. However, Mr O'Malley did not respond to the letter of 9 October 2003 to point out that there had been a failure to respond to his complaint about the possible commission of an offence. Nor did Mr O'Malley take up the suggestion of inquiring of Telstra as to how the intercept wires might have been left on the telegraph pole. 18 What Mr O'Malley did was to commence a proceeding in this Court. By an application filed on 3 October 2003, Mr O'Malley claimed an order '[t]hat the Court direct the AFP Commissioner to immediately commence investigation into a 10 year continuous breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act'. Attached to and filed with the application was a document entitled 'Statement of Claim' which did not comply with the Federal Court Rules. Mr O'Malley, however, attaches significance to the fact that the correspondence to which I have referred, and correspondence with Advanced Investigations was annexed to that document. That correspondence is of some importance and I shall say something about it. 19 On 19 September 2003, Mr O'Malley wrote to Advanced Investigations, relevantly saying:` 'I refer to your phone call on Wednesday afternoon of 10 September 2003 in which you advised that you had completed your Report with much detail on the intercept wire found on my telephone line for the debugging investigation you conducted at my home on 4 September 2003. In our very brief conversation you inferred you were about to forward it on to me as I requested that you also attach tax invoice to same Report. … You have failed to deliver on the Report as advised per your telephone conversation of last week. … Given the aforementioned, I am compelled to inform you that unless I receive a full Report from you by cob 26 September 2003 with respect to the intercept wire, the humming noise from the Telstra box and confirmation that my home is clear of bugs, or else, full reimbursement of my costs …, I will immediately initiate legal proceedings to recover my costs in this matter.' 20 On 22 September 2003, Mr O'Malley received a report from Advanced Investigations. The report is, in fact, dated 9 September 2003 and was sent in an envelope post marked 6 pm, 19 September 2003. The report of 9 September 2003 relevantly said, as follows: 'As discussed arrangements were made to conduct an electronic sweep and debug of the private premises ... … A search of the telephone line where it enters the property at the rear fence found no visible interference with the existing phone line except the different coloured connectors for the additional fax/modem phone line.

On viewing the connector where the phone line enters the office area an usually large junction box the said application was in place and it was filled with a water proof sealer. There were no visible signs that the junction box of the phone line wiring has been interfered with.

An inspection was carried out of the telephone wiring where it comes into the property at the roof level found there were no signs of any recent activity in this area with the original saring being in place.

A close inspection of the power pole where the telephone wiring was also connected found no recent activity as within the last 6 months or more with spider webs and spiders being well established. At this time I located a length of four core multi coloured telephone cables covered with the normal black sheath. The wire was some two to three metres in length one end was located within 10mm of the phone cable connection that runs to your premises.

Further inspection reveals the other end of the cable was running to the inside of the cement pole and came out the other side… … It appeared that the cable was problely [sic] cut by someone reaching around the pole and as a portion of slack cable was inside the pole it was difficult to pull out and remove from the access point at the rear and not so difficult from your side of the property.

One could come to a number of conclusions as to why this cable was where it was but there appears to be a high likelihood that the cable was at some staged [sic] involved with a connection to your phone line given the fact that where it was positioned was immediately next to your telephone line connectors and did not involve any other telephone connections.

The only explanation that I could see is that a new cable had been run to your connection, if this was the case why would the old cable be left in place when it is usually pulled out to make room for the new cable and or used to pull the new cable though [sic] for the new connection.

Anyway there are more questions than answers, in my opinion. There was an indication of interference with the telephone but to prove it was sinister, there would need to be more evidence than that was found on the day.' Mr O'Malley replied on 24 September 2003, relevantly saying: 'I refer to your report regarding the above matter dated 9 September 2003. … …I refer you to my letter … of 19 September 2003 and given your report and my letter were in transit, I extend my deadline to cob Friday 3 October 2003 for a full comprehensive final report on the issues addressed in that letter.

I will also expect an explanation in this final report why you have revised your initial explanation to my son and I, when you advised us based on the corrosive weathering of the copper tipped wiring that was found within the pole that the wiring was cut no more than five/six months ago. In your report you suggest that it was longer than six months when this cutting took place based on a spider web theory. Please note that the wattle tree surrounding this pole had been cut to facilitate easier access for you, though this was not necessary.

Given your fee and expenses were all paid for in advance, nothing less than a full comprehensive report or full reimbursement of costs is required …' 21 There is no evidence that Mr O'Malley enforced his requirement that a full report be obtained. The significance of the correspondence between Mr O'Malley and Advanced Investigations is, Mr O'Malley says, that it was attached to the application and statement of claim filed in this Court, which was served on the Commissioner on 3 October 2003. However, nothing appears to have come of the proceeding. It appears that the Australian Government Solicitor, at a directions hearing, indicated that it proposed to move to strike out the proceeding. At further directions hearings, Mr O'Malley said that he was awaiting legal advice before he could pursue the matter. Finally, on 12 March 2004, the matter came before Stone J. A transcript of the proceeding records that her Honour said: 'Mr O'Malley, last time you were before the court and, I think, the time before that, I raised the matter with you as the statement of claim. I note that you have sent a letter to the registrar of the court indicating you've had some difficulty in getting legal advice and that you hoped by today to have some more information on that matter.' And later, her Honour said: 'Mr O'Malley … The statement of claim that you've put in is not a statement of claim which in my view is capable of revision so as to make it an appropriate statement of claim. … the difficulty is, … it's impossible to work out really what the claim is, or get any idea of the merits. … I'm inclined to strike this matter out. … that involves no determination of the merits and it doesn't stop you were you to get legal advice and were able to formulate a cogent claim of commencing again.' 22 Her Honour then ordered that the proceeding be dismissed generally, pursuant to O 20 r 2. It is significant that her Honour was unable to glean precisely what claim was being made by Mr O'Malley in the proceeding that he commenced in October 2003. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that the Commissioner and those advising him would also have been unable to glean precisely what the complaint was that was being made by Mr O'Malley. 23 In any event, nothing further was done by Mr O'Malley so far as the evidence goes, until 5 April 2004 when it appears that he distributed in and around his home a flyer, which relevantly said: '$50,000 REWARD For information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the criminals that installed an 'Intercept Wire' on the family telephone line in 1992 and to the apprehension and conviction of the criminals engaged in recording family telephone conversations since 1993 until March 2003, as well as, the apprehension and conviction of those criminals involved in intercepting emails from the family's second telephone line (Internet Dedicated) from November 1998 until March 2003.

Expert advice confirms these criminals operated within a 500 metre radius of this property.

All written information will be treated in the strictest of confidence. This notice is now posted on the family property.' 24 I have not been furnished with any material concerning the assertion that criminals operated within a 500 metre radius of Mr O'Malley's property. In any event, that flyer prompted a letter from the Australian Federal Police of 4 May 2004. The letter was signed by a detective sergeant of Fraud Intelligence, ACT Policing, and relevantly said as follows: 'Re: flyer relating to phones being tapped Police have received information relating to flyers being dropped in your name with the heading "$50,000 reward". Some of these flyers were dropped in letterboxes outside the 500 metre radius mentioned in your letter. As the information you have provided in your letter raises potentially criminal actions, I would like to speak to you further about this matter.' 25 The letter then invited Mr O'Malley to ring on a telephone number in Canberra. The reference to 'your letter' appears to be a reference to the flyer of 5 April 2004. Mr O'Malley did not take up the invitation contained in the letter of 4 May 2004 to contact the author of the letter. 26 Rather, on 11 May 2004 he forwarded to, among others, the Minister for Justice and Customs, a copy of the flyer. In the letter, reference was made to the Hansard report of proceedings of the House of Representatives in December 1990. The letter to the Minister for Justice and Customs prompted a response of 19 July 2004 from the Minister, relevantly saying as follows: 'Thank you for your letter of 11 May 2004 in relation to your concerns that your home telephone lines were intercepted between 1992 and 2003.

I am advised you brought this matter to the attention of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and that on 9 October 2003 you were notified in writing that this matter would not be investigated. The technology depicted in the photographs that you sent to the AFP is not consistent with technology used by the AFP.

You have said in your letter that this matter was the subject of a Federal Court action. I am advised that the Federal Court dismissed this matter on 12 March 2004.

I am further advised that the AFP wrote to you on 4 May 2004 inviting you to contact ACT Policing to discuss your concerns. I encourage you to contact ACT Policing to discuss the issues you have raised.' 27 Mr O'Malley's only response was to commence this proceeding on 24 August 2004. By the proceeding Mr O'Malley claims the following orders: '1. An order that a writ of mandamus be issued compelling the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to perform his duty according to the functional provisions of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 by immediately investigating all aspects (both directly and indirectly) related to the unauthorised Intercept found on the family's telephone line which constitutes a fifteen 15 year breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. 2. An order that a [writ] of mandamus be issued compelling the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to provide detailed fortnightly progress reports to the applicant once the [writ] at paragraph (1) has been enforced.' 28 There is no real dispute as to the nature of the duty of the Federal Police as described in the authorities to which I have referred. Mr O'Malley, however, also sought to gain some additional assistance from the definitional provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. He referred the Court specifically to s 6A(1) and s 6A(2). However, he was unable to refer to any substantive provision of that legislation that imposed any duty on the Australian Federal Police. It is clear that the definitions are for use in connection with the substantive provisions of the Act, whereby there are exceptions to s 7 prohibiting intercept of communications passing over telecommunication systems. 29 There are certain circumstances where in the course of an investigation by an agency of an offence, intercept can be authorised. I do not consider that Mr O'Malley derives any assistance at all from the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act so far as the duties of the Federal Police are concerned, but he places great store on the prohibition contained in that Act, of interception other than in the circumstances permitted. There is no suggestion that the Australian Federal Police have engaged in any unlawful conduct or that there is any impropriety involved in the failure to take any further steps to investigate the complaints that Mr O'Malley makes. 30 It is significant, in my view, that Mr O'Malley has failed to take up several invitations that may or may not have resulted in further information as to commission of an offence. First, he did not take up the suggestion made by the Australian Federal Police to inquire of Telstra as to how the intercept wire may have been placed on the telephone line. Secondly, he did not carry out, so far as the evidence is concerned, any further inquiry of Advanced Investigations concerning the asserted inconsistency between oral advice and the report of 9 September 2003. He did not pursue the proceeding that was commenced in October 2003 against the Australian Federal Police, seeking relief similar to that being sought in this proceeding. He did not take up the invitation from the Fraud Intelligence Section of ACT Policing to discuss the allegations made in his file. 31 I am not persuaded on the material before me that there has been any failure on the part of the Australian Federal Police to discharge the duties which they have under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth). I do not consider that the evidence before me suggests that an honest police officer acting reasonably could not properly come to the view that there is insufficient material of substance to warrant further investigation, particularly when coupled with the failures of Mr O'Malley to which I have referred. Those failures are also matters to be taken into account by the Court in considering whether it should exercise its discretion in any event. 32 Having regard to the view I have formed that there has been no breach of duty, it is not a question of my refusing relief on the discretionary ground. However, had there been evidence of even a minor breach, I would have expected Mr O'Malley to have taken greater steps to pursue the matter than he has. I do not consider that Mr O'Malley is entitled to any relief at this stage, and accordingly I consider that the proceedings should be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding thirty-two (32) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor