National Party may take legal route to muzzle outsider MP
The National Party is considering filing a court injunction to halt the release of any audio recordings by outsider MP Jami-lee Ross – and a legal expert says the party would have a strong case.
On Wednesday, Ross alluded to having more recordings before releasing audio of him and Bridges discussing a $100,000 donation.
In the recording, Bridges also described his own MP Maureen Pugh as ‘‘f ...... useless’’, for which he later apologised.
Then on Thursday, Ross released a text message exchange relating to the donation that Ross alleged came from a single businessman but the payments were broken up to avoid having to declare it.
Asked about the possibility of an injunction, a spokesman for Bridges said: ‘‘The National Party is considering its legal options.’’
Victoria University associate professor, Dr Nicole Moreham said Bridges could seek an injunction and would have a strong case. If National heard the publication of material was imminent, it could apply to the court for an injunction on the basis of what it knew about the contents to stop it from being released.
The only basis a person can avoid that liability was if there was a public interest in the release of the material, such as criminal offending. ‘‘I think even on just what has been released at the moment, it’s not clear there was a justification for releasing that entire conversation.’’
Moreham, who specialises in privacy and confidence breaches said there may not be clear public interest to justify a recording of someone talking with political colleagues.
‘‘I think he would have a pretty strong case in breach of confidence.’’
That information could have been imparted in circumstances of confidence – shared in such a way the other person knew it was not to go any further, she said.
‘‘If you knew those things, I think it would be pretty easy to establish in any type of conversation with a political colleague … you could get an injunction for breach of confidence.’’
The law was mindful of protecting confidential relationships and the kinds of exchanges where people can speak freely about things they do that they do not want aired publicly, she said.
Moreham added that if there was a breach in confidence, it was also likely there could be a breach in privacy, depending on the contents.
‘‘With privacy you have to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the contents of the conversation and that releasing it would be highly offensive to an objective ordinary person.’’
A lot of weight would also be put on the way the information was imparted, she said. An entrapment situation would not help the defendant because it would slightly reduce the public interest if there were questions that were led into and not voluntary or spontaneous exchanges.
‘‘As a result that would undermine the public interest in what was revealed in those discussions.’’