Master Evans of the Victorian Supreme Court today dismissed Gunns' application for an order that The Wilderness Society(TWS) release more documents to Gunns. The documents sought included contact addresses, phone numbers and other details of 128 conservationists. No decision was made on costs.

On 20 March 2008 Gunns applied for orders that TWS provide more documents. This is part of the "discovery" process which has been ongoing since late 2007.

Gunns were seeking orders that some of TWS' documents be unmasked. TWS had masked information in some of the documents provided on the basis that the infomation masked was irrelevant and confidential. Master Evans held there was no basis upon which to compel TWS to produce the documents in their entirety given the various affidavits that had been sworn by TWS representatives.

Gunns also sought "constituent profiles" of 128 persons. Master Evans ruled that there was an insufficient basis upon which to conclude these profiles were relevant to the case or in many instances existed at all.

TWS welcomed the decision, their media release issued is attached. It quotes TWS Legal Coordinator, Greg Ogle, as saying:

"Gunns was seeking database records for a range of people whose names had come up in relation to the case or, in some instances, simply in relation to the broader campaign to protect Tasmania’s forests.

The Wilderness Society strongly resisted production of its database records because we support the privacy of the information given to us. If you sign a postcard, a petition, or you give your name at a stall or rally, I don’t think it is reasonable that your details get hauled up in court years afterwards. That possibility would make people think twice about participating in fundamental democratic activities, and having courts prying into such matters smacks of McCarthyest America, not a vibrant democratic Australia.

This document discovery process and court argument probably cost us over $150,000, a necessary expense for us, but one which we would not have to endure if our legal system protected the rights of the community to participate in public debate and political protest. The sooner we get law reform to protect public participation, the better."

ALSO ATTACHED - ABC coverage of the judgment.