Adelaide Advertiser journalist David Hellaby said yesterday that he would not disclose his sources of information about what he says was criminal conduct within the State Bank of South Australia, despite the expiry of a 14-day period set by the High Court to satisfy bank discovery requests.
The South Australian Auditor-General, Ken MacPherson, delivered a 3000-page report into the bank yesterday.
The bank is considering suing Mr Hellaby for injurious falsehood over articles he wrote last July saying sources privy to the Auditor-General’s inquiry had told him of suspected large-scale criminal activity within the bank group, but that perpetrators would never be prosecuted because the state lacked the legal resources. The bank asserts it has suffered $500,000 in damages because of the article, which it says is untrue. It has asserted Mr Hellaby had no foundation for his article.
Mr Hellaby allowed the bank’s lawyers to look at 1800 pages of documents yesterday in answer to the bank’s legal discovery request, but he said he would not reveal the sources.
It was now up to the bank to decide whether those documents satisfied their discovery request or whether they would return to the court to seek further orders.
Mr Hellaby unsuccessfully claimed privilege against disclosure of his sources in the South Australian Supreme Court and the High Court.
Mr Hellaby said, “”The bank will have to look very hard at this report before deciding whether to continue its case against me.”
He said the Auditor-General was going to produce a confidential report on the bank in July in addition to yesterday’s report.
The chairman of the Press Council, David Flint, has condemned the law that has required the disclosure of journalists’ confidential sources saying it would prevent the free flow of information and was not in the public interest.
In half a dozen cases in the past decade the courts have invariably ruled that there is a greater public interest in litigants, in defamation and other cases, knowing the source of material so they can present their cases than in the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources so that others would not be reluctant to disclose what they see as iniquities in future cases.
In the US the courts have usually ruled the other way, relying the US Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press.