The Gunns20 case returned to court today for argument as to whether The Wilderness Society (TWS) should be ordered to release more documents. The hearing lasted all day and the presiding Master has reserved his decision (meaning he will hand it down at a later date). In the course of the hearing Gunns’ barrister, Ian Waller SC, revealed that a section of the case, which concerns allegations of protest activity in 2004 at the Triabunna woodchip mill and wharf, had been settled. No details of the terms of the settlement were revealed.

This hearing was the result of an application by Gunns and is part of the “discovery” process which began in mid-2007. Discovery is the process by which parties to a case exchange documents relevant to the issues in the case.

There were two main areas subject of argument. Firstly, TWS had provided numerous documents in which sections had been masked. Gunns sought to have the documents released without this masking. Masking is a standard way of ensuring only information relevant to a case is provided. TWS argued that certain information that had been masked was legally privileged. TWS also argued that certain masked information was irrelevant and confidential. This was supported by argument that Gunns was effectively at “war” with TWS and thus TWS should not have to reveal information which was irrelevant to the case but that could be damaging to TWS in other contexts if given to Gunns.

Secondly, Gunns sought the release of “constituent profiles” held by TWS. A constituent profile contains information about individuals and groups (including phone numbers and addresses) that have had contact with TWS. This is wider than just TWS members and includes people who have had minor contact such as signing a TWS postcard or petition. Gunns asked the court to order that TWS hand over 79 of these profiles (this includes 2 defendants). The court heard that some of the requests were based solely on the name of the individual being included on a contact list which had been discovered by the Huon Valley Environment Centre. The barrister for Gunns responded arguing some of the profiles they requested were for people alleged to have been directly involved in the actions that are the subject of the case. The Huon Valley Environment Centre is defendant #12 and had to provide to Gunns numerous documents in the course of the discovery process.

Julian Burnside QC, barrister for TWS, reiterated previous remarks about the fact that TWS’ legal costs for the discovery process alone almost equate to the damages Gunns are seeking in compensation.

It is not known when the decision will be handed down.