A lack of police understanding about newspaper production schedules was apparently behind the premature publication by The Australian newspaper of information about an anti-terrorism operation, according to the Australian Federal Police watchdog agency, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.

In its long awaited report on how reporter Cameron Stewart came to be briefed on details of the secret operation, the ACLEI found that no corruption was involved. The AFP did not trade information in return for favorable media coverage.

The report does not, as claimed by The Australian, clear the newspaper of any wrongdoing. Rather, as one would expect given its jurisdiction, it concentrates on the conduct of the police.

There is little comment on the conduct of The Australian, other than to note that the newspaper agreed to delay publication of details of the raid as part of its negotiation with the Australian Federal Police, and also withheld some information from publication at police request.

Stewart approached the AFP on July 30, 2009, five days before the Operation Neath raids took place. He was seeking to confirm information he had about Operation Neath. The details he provided were “largely accurate, indicating that a knowledgeable and up-to-date law enforcement source may have leaked the information”, the report says.

A leak inquiry began immediately, and at a meeting that afternoon involving all the partner agencies it was agreed that the AFP should negotiate with the newspaper to delay publication in return for official briefings.

The report identified a number of security breaches surrounding Operation Neath. In one case, during July 2009, the major incident room in the AFP Melbourne office had been left with the door jammed open as a “practical solution” to the fact that security passes had not been issued to key personnel. As well, a television film crew filming the work of the AFP was informed in general terms about Operation Neath two days before the raids took place.

However, neither of these incidents were the source of Stewart’s information. A Victorian Police officer, Detective Senior Constable Simon Artz, is presently facing charges of having leaked to Stewart. The matter is listed for the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on November 30.

The ACLEI investigated whether the briefings Stewart received were in return for favorable media coverage “such that it could constitute corrupt conduct”.

The report found that when the AFP entered negotiations with The Australian, the main concern was that publication of the information could precipitate a premature terrorist attack. “The AFP’s concern was not based on mere speculation, but had a solid foundation in the intelligence gathered as part of Operation Neath,” the report says.

The report finds that the subsequent briefings provided to Stewart by the AFP were part of a good faith attempt to contain the threat to the operation.

The report addresses the concerns raised by Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland that too much information was provided to Stewart. “The briefing given to the newspaper was extensive. In addition, at the point the briefing was provided some of the information was still operationally sensitive and may have attracted protection under Commonwealth legislation,” the report says.

Nevertheless, the ACLEI finds that while it was arguable that a less extensive briefing would have served the same purpose, the decisions made by the AFP were made in good faith.

The ACLEI report also confirms that copies of The Australian carrying the Operation Neath scoop were available in Melbourne before the raids took place on August 5, 2009 and that this meant the suspects could have been tipped off. But this was apparently due to a “misunderstanding” which meant the AFP was not aware that distribution of the newspaper would occur earlier than had been discussed in the planning stages.

The ACLEI report is, overall, a bland effort. It focuses narrowly on its area of jurisdiction — the conduct of police. That’s fair enough. This report was never going to be an investigation into The Australian.

Yet still it leaves questions unanswered. How could the misunderstanding about the publication time of the newspaper have arisen? Were the agreements with The Australian written down? If not, why not? Are police really so naive as to not realise that a morning newspaper is available very early in the day?

As for how The Australian behaved, the ACLEI was never going to comment. The agency that DID try to tangle with The Oz is the Victorian Office of Police Integrity. Its report was the focus of federal court action brought by the newspaper in an attempt to suppress the evidence and the findings.

For the rest of the story, we will have to wait for the hearing against Detective Senior Constable Simon Artz. The brief of evidence in the case is said to be extensive, involving more than 49 witnesses. Watch this space.