Let’s go through what the High Court ruling in Annika Smethurst and News Corp’s case means @abcnews @politicsabc #auspol (THREAD)

The High Court challenge brought by Ms Smethurst and News Corp was based on two key arguments (simplified):
A) the warrant to search her home wasn’t specific enough
B) the law under which the warrant was issued infringed on the implied freedom of political communication

Ms Smethurst and News Corp wanted the warrant thrown out, and the data seized from her home and phone returned or destroyed

The High Court ruled unanimously that the warrant was invalid. Because it quashed the warrant, the High Court said it didn’t have to decide on the constitutional issue of freedom of political communication

Where to from here? Well, not all of the Justices said the data should be handed back and destroyed. So, that hasn’t been ordered by the High Court

We could see a situation where, if this matter does go to trial, lawyers argue the data is inadmissible as evidence because the warrant itself has been quashed. But that hasn’t happened yet.

(Also worth noting that the Attorney-General has said permission for any prosecution of journalists need to be approved by him)

In addition, the AFP have to pay Ms Smethurst and News Corp’s costs (ENDS)