had occurred to me on reading the written submissions. It is whether the privilege, whatever its present status, would be destroyed at trial upon a source being called as a witness at trial and identified by a few simple questions as a source. The argument would be that the documents are relevant (they have been discovered) and should be produced. The potential for the disruption to the orderly progress of the trial should this occur is obvious. As I understood the respondents' reply to that submission, it was that no assumptions should be made as to what might occur at trial and, as far as the period before trial is concerned, if this potential for disruption is relevant, it can only be relevant as a public interest consideration on application under s 126K(2) of the Evidence Act. It seems to me that the fact that there may be disclosure of identity as an informant at trial cannot affect the determination of the privilege issue at this stage. The fact that as at the present time that may happen, or is likely to happen, at trial may be relevant to an application under s 126K(2), but, as I have said, thus far no such application has been made.
137 Person 14 gave evidence at the trial. He was asked about conversations with journalists. I ruled that the questions were not rendered impermissible by s 126K of the Evidence Act (see Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 28) [2022] FCA 115). In the result, the notes of Mr Masters, the third respondent, were produced and Person 14 was asked about what was contained in the notes. Certain matters from the notes were put to him which the applicant contends show that Person 14 is a liar and a perjurer. The applicant gives this as an example of the possibility of important material existing which neither he nor the Court was aware until Person 14 was in the witness box and I made the rulings which I did.
138 The fact is I upheld the claim for privilege on the basis of s 126K of the Evidence Act. However, it did not apply to the source when the source was asked questions in the witness box. Person 14 was asked such questions as was Person 7. The journalists' notes were also produced in the case of Person 7.
139 The applicant's submission that there is potentially a treasure trove of undisclosed material is not made out. The evidence establishes that as far as the journalists are concerned, Persons 18 and 1 were not sources. Persons 24, 40, 41, 42 and 43 were not sources because, as the respondents submitted, those witnesses only came to their attention as part of the circumstances connected with the PAP Notice. The applicant does not suggest that Persons 4 and 56 were a source and the applicant himself has made the point that the respondents have had no relevant contact with Persons 4 and 56.
3. Person 12
140 Person 12 features in the alleged murder at Chinartu. He is also the subject of what the respondents call the Person 12 lie which they contend is part of the circumstantial evidence in the case and evidence which constitutes an admission against interest by the applicant. The
