The Federal Court begun by talking some smack

39 It is not apparent why the fact of Mr McBride being charged and committed for trial precludes further investigations being carried out, including by the execution of a search warrant to obtain further or better evidence. That is a very common incident of criminal investigations and prosecutions. This is such an obvious point that it did not require separate mention by the primary judge.

40 As to the reported admissions by Mr McBride, they are not necessarily or even likely to be admissible evidence of anything, let alone admissions that address all the elements of the offences that he is alleged to have committed. This too is so obvious that it did not require separate mention by the primary judge.

49 In particular, the ABC replies upon the second sentence of the answer reproduced above:

The substance of that … to our investigation is somewhat irrelevant. The issue of whether or not the public has a right to know is really not an issue that comes into our investigation process”. (AFP)

50 The problem with this argument is twofold. First, it has not been explained how general comments by the Acting Commissioner are capable of establishing what the state of mind was of those who actually applied for the search warrant, let alone that of Mr Kane.

This too was very very obvious

50 Secondly, as the respondents point out, the Acting Commissioner also said other things that cast serious doubt upon the meaning that the ABC sought to attribute to the passages relied upon, including the following:

(2) after counter 7:57:

AFP: … Public interest is something that we look at in relation to our investigations from the outset. …

(3) at counter 27:35:

ABC: It strikes me that a story about the behaviour of our SAS troops abroad that might have involved the murder of innocents and a discussion of whether one of our agencies might be re-tasked to spy on Australian citizens are of prime public importance. Are you saying that the public interest would have been better served had those two pieces of journalism not appeared?

AFP: No, I’ve never said. What I’m saying is we have investigated a criminal offence. And I said, I think I’ve said at the outset, and correct me if I didn’t, that we’re investigating the criminality. Now the issue of public interest is a matter that we do consider and I have said that. But we considered that at various phases through the investigation. I will also say that in relation to one of those matters in particular, there is also some very sensitive personal information that has found its way into the hands of people who probably shouldn’t have it. And I’m concerned about that, as are those individual members. We’ve got to take into consideration, as I said as well, individual privacy here is paramount as well.

When the Federal Courts literally proved that you are Fake News

53 First, I am not satisfied that being prevented from extending a search warrant challenge to issues based upon weak and inconclusive inferences as to what was in the search warrant application, is capable of constituting any injustice at all, let alone substantial injustice.

56 Even if a Full Court could be assembled to hear such an appeal before then, it would be difficult to sensibly predict that a decision could be reached before then if, contrary to my primary view, there would be anything of substance to such an appeal.

Translation: Stop wasting the Court's time with your circus act

Source: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca1716