disclosure and his legal practitioner disclosure did not attract the immunity under s 10(1)(a) and dismissed the application.
24 The appellant appeals that decision.
Grounds of appeal
25 The appellant appeals against the primary Judge's decision on the following grounds:
1. The [primary] Judge erred in determining that the 'separate proceedings' conducted pursuant to s 23(1)(c) of [the Act], to determine the appellant's claim for immunity under s 10 of [the Act], were civil rather than criminal proceedings.
- 1.1 The [primary] Judge ought to have found that the Court was exercising federal criminal jurisdiction in respect of the matter pursuant to s 68(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
2. The [primary] Judge erred in determining that the legal or persuasive onus cast upon the prosecution by s 23(l)(b) Of [the Act] was proof on the balance Of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The [primary] Judge erred in her construction of the scope of s 10(1)(a) of [the Act].
- 3.1 The [primary] Judge erred in finding that immunity from liability 'for making the public interest disclosure' is confined to the actual disclosure of information by a public official to an authorised recipient.
- 3.2 The [primary] Judge ought to have found that immunity extends to anterior acts of the discloser (including criminal acts) that reasonably formed part of the process which resulted in the creation of the disclosure (including the recording and collection of evidence relating to the disclosure).
4. The [primary] Judge erred in finding that the appellant's conduct in performing the acts the subject of counts 1–6 and counts 8–15 did not reasonably form part of the process of making the public interest disclosure.
5. The [primary] Judge erred in finding that the appellant's conduct in performing the acts the subject of counts 16–24 did not constitute legal practitioner disclosures as defined in s 26 of [the Act].
- 5.1 The [primary] Judge erred in finding that the uploading of the subject photographs to a Proton Mail server account did not constitute a disclosure of information for the purposes of s 26 of [the Act].
- 5.2 The [primary] Judge erred in finding that, if the uploading of the photographs did amount to such a disclosure, the appellant had failed to discharge the onus
