Page:R v McBride (No 4).pdf/46

 penalty of seven years' imprisonment, and s 79(3), unauthorised communication of a prescribed document, which carried a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

218․ The espionage offence required that the offender be acting "for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth or a part of the Queen's dominions". He was about 25 years old at the time of the offences. He was found to be suffering from significant mental illness at the time of the offending. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for the espionage count and six months' imprisonment for disclosing a prescribed document. The total sentence was 27 months' imprisonment, to serve six months prior to release on a recognizance to be of good behaviour.

219․ R v Kessing (District Court (NSW), Bennet DCJ, 22 June 2007, unrep) involved a former Australian Customs Service Officer who provided two documents about Sydney Airport to journalists. The charge was under s 70 of the Crimes Act and carried a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The documents related to drug offences and breaches of airport security that had not been reported or otherwise addressed. The documents were sensitive and confidential and could compromise law enforcement operations and methodology. As a result of the disclosure, the Commonwealth government appointed a committee which recommended increased airport security. The offender was motivated by a sense of injustice and frustration at the lack of security. He had no contrition. He had no prospects of rehabilitation from the current type of offending. He was otherwise of good character and was 59 years old. He was given a suspended sentence of nine months' imprisonment.

220․ R v Seivers and O'Ryan (Supreme Court (ACT), Gray J, 10 June 2009, unrep) involved a contravention of s 18(2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) which carried a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. It involved disclosure of documents marked "confidential" or not marked at all. Mr Seivers brought the documents home to prepare for a Senate inquiry. Mr O'Ryan, on his own initiative, copied them and sent them to four different news organisations. The documents had the capacity to prejudice Australia's national security as well as the functions of ASIO. Mr Seivers demonstrated no contrition but was of good character. Mr O'Ryan showed contrition and had been motivated by a desire to make public certain matters related to the Bali Bombings. Both received a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months, with six months to be served by periodic detention and the balance suspended. Mr Seivers' conviction was set aside on appeal: Seivers v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 9.

221․ R v Johns (a pseudonym) [2019] ACTSC 399 was a case in which the offender entered pleas of guilty to a number of offences which bear some similarity to those in the present case. The difficulty is that the judgment has been so heavily redacted it is not possible