The case of Nationwide News and Australian editor Paul Whittaker versus the Office of Police Integrity is turning in to a high stakes game with the reputation of the OPI, its federal counterpart the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement and Integrity, and The Australian all in play.

If the OPI is to be believed it seems that it also involves that central principle of investigative journalism — that a reporter should not in any circumstances reveal the identity of a confidential source.

This makes the case a gut-wrencher among journalists. The reporter at the heart of the case, Cameron Stewart, is well liked and respected in the profession, has won many awards, including most recently the Gold Quill for the story at the heart of the current court case.

The Right to Know coalition — of which News Limited is the founding partner — is presently arguing for shield laws in Australia to protect journalists’ right to keep sources confidential.

Yet the interview Stewart gave to the OPI is now said to be the “central piece of evidence” on which charges are likely to be laid. The OPI lawyers claimed that information was given voluntarily in that interview.

Stewart, presently on holidays, is subject to a restraining order that prevents him from telling his side of the story, but I understand that he vigorously disputes that the interview he gave to the OPI was voluntary, or that he gave up his source.

Sources from inside The Australian have told me this morning that there is  “a huge issue that the OPI are not mentioning, a major twist in the tale”. Apparently there are suppression orders in place that prevent this from being revealed.

But Australian editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell recently gave the following interesting quote in an interview as part of Crikey’s recent series on PR spin:

“I’m going through a very difficult legal battle with Victorian Police over investigations from Cameron Stewart and the terror raid last year … I’m trying very hard to get people to emulate people like Cameron Stewart who don’t go through police media but, of course, that’s why he’s getting prosecuted and has been under investigation by the Australian Federal Police two or three times in the last two years.”

Meanwhile, it became clear in court yesterday that the OPI’s investigation is continuing, raising the possibility that the fallout could spread more widely. I understand there may be more than one charge and more than one person charged. It is not suggested that Stewart will be charged.

Also plain to see are the poisonous relations between the OPI and its federal counterpart, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement and Integrity. As reported in Crikey on Wednesday, the ACLEI have cut a deal to get out of the current litigation. The OPI lawyer said in court yesterday that if it did the same thing, it would not be a proper exercise of its statutory responsibilities.

The narrative on this case that one hears from inside The Australian — inevitably self-serving but not necessarily a complete crock — goes like this:

The OPI is far too close to the agency it is meant to be scrutinising, the Victoria Police. Its record suggests that it is a fitting subject of scrutiny, and The Australian (along with other media outlets) is being punished for consistently suggesting it be replaced with a Royal Commission or standing anti-corruption body. The Victoria Police were the driving force behind Operation Neath, yet because Stewart obtained Federal Police briefings, they failed to get credit. As a result, relations between the OPI and ACLEI, and between the two police forces, are poisonous, and the media and The Australian in particular are being used as scapegoats.

This line is sincerely believed and advanced within The Australian.

Whether such an agenda is really sufficient justification to drive what the OPI is doing is something that independent observers may doubt.

It was surely always inevitable that there would be a high level investigation into the source of Stewart’s leak. Conspiracy theories are not needed to explain why this happened.

As for the “twist in the tail” promised by Australian sources — and indeed the legal basis for News Limited’s claim that the entire OPI-ACLEI investigation was invalid — all that is yet to come.

There are clearly many more twists and turns in this case. Lawyers for Nationwide News made clear in court yesterday that they will appeal against any decision to lift or relax the injunction presently preventing the OPI from releasing its report into the leak.

This could run and run.

And all without the public able to be fully informed.