R v McManus and Harvey

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

R v McManus and Harvey is an important Australian case about press freedom and protecting journalists’ sources. It involved Herald Sun reporters Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey in Melbourne, Victoria.

In June 2007 they were found guilty of contempt of court for refusing to reveal the source of a February 2004 story about veterans’ benefits. The article had shown the federal government had rejected about 60 recommendations to improve benefits for returned servicemen and women, including funeral costs, while presenting the changes as a gain for veterans and widows.

The story led to a large government investigation into the leak, with authorities probing thousands of phone lines and mobile devices. McManus and Harvey refused to disclose their source, citing the journalists’ Code of Ethics. Civil servant Desmond Patrick Kelly was charged with leaking confidential material. He was found guilty, but the Victorian Court of Appeal overturned that conviction in 2006 due to insufficient evidence that he leaked the information.

Back in the contempt case, on 25 June 2007, McManus was convicted on five counts and Harvey on four. The judge, Chief Judge Michael Rozenes, said the offence was serious and warned jail was possible. Both journalists were fined $7,000 and a conviction was recorded.

The verdict sparked a national debate about protecting journalism. It helped push governments to consider “shield laws” that would let journalists keep sources confidential during trials. From 2007 to 2011, there were several proposals and debates. Private member bills in 2009 aimed to strengthen protections, drawing on similar laws from New Zealand. In 2011 the Senate agreed to amendments expanding journalist protections, though some argued the definition of a journalist should also include bloggers. Some Australian states introduced shield laws, but protections for bloggers were not consistently included.