Witness K Bernard Collaery
Witness K's former lawyer Bernard Collaery (Image: AAP/Lukas Coch)

On the fight for Bernard Collaery

Mark Dunstone writes: This case is such a huge stain on Australia. Secret trials and star chambers convicting people of who know what were abolished centuries ago in our legal system. Having opposed Justice Mossop years ago when he was a young barrister and again in front of him when he was a magistrate I expect he will be well do his best to apply ethical justice to the matter to the extent allowed by seriously evil federal legislation and what appears equally evil and unethical executive legal tactics.

Mark E Smith writes: They must see the risk-reward odds differently to me. Somehow this case hasn’t blown up into a major scandal but there’s still time. The obvious thing to do was to stop K and Collaery testifying overseas, do some sort of deal with Collaery and let the case die down. To keep raising the stakes by pushing for secret trials and secret evidence beggars belief. The case is about an illegal bugging of a notional ally to gain a private company’s commercial advantage. There’s nothing security related about it at all. Even if it goes to plan and both are convicted Collaery has made it clear he’ll tell all when the time is right. And that time will likely be of his choosing. He’s been tainted into a mindset where he feels he has little to gain but nothing to lose. If there’s a point, even pure bastardry, I can’t see it.

On Morrison and the call

Richard Shortt writes: So, we have one established case of poor judgement (sorry, Scott, that’s you). Now we await to see if a second case is involved (yes, NSW Police commissioner, that’s you). Once we know definitively what the commissioner’s response was to the PMs call, we can make our call. Unfortunately, this matter is complicated further by my reading of a Guardian article that refers to the now-PM (then treasurer) and the said commissioner being next door neighbours. Now that really does mean we need clarity on the commissioner’s response as we may need to move from judgement assessments to conflict of interest ones.

There's more to Crikey than you think.

Get more and save 50%.

Subscribe now

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.

There's more to Crikey than you think.

It’s more than a newsletter. It’s where readers expect more – fearless journalism from a truly independent perspective. We don’t pander to anyone’s party biases. We question everything, explore the uncomfortable and dig deeper.

And now you get more from your membership than ever before.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Get more and save 50%