A Northern Territory police officer who allegedly sent work documents to a group chat has pleaded not guilty to disclosing confidential information, with her lawyer telling the court the documents were "trivial" and her actions do not warrant a criminal sanction.
Fingerprint expert Jeannie Secrett, who has worked with the NT Police Force for 24 years, appeared in the Darwin Local Court on Thursday charged with two counts of disclosing confidential information, which each carry a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment.
The court heard she shared an internal email about the police force implementing a third COVID-19 vaccine mandate and a photo of the NT Police Gazette with members of a group chat on Signal called "NTPFES (Northern Territory Police Force and Emergency Services) for Freedom" on two occasions in February and March last year.
Prosecutor Camille McKay told the court Ms Secrett printed off the internal email and annotated it before she took photos and shared them to the group chat — whose members included current and former police officers, plus some members of the general public.
"The focus of the chat group was to discuss and oppose the NT chief health officer's COVID-19 mandates," Ms McKay told the court.
After Ms Secrett shared the email, the court heard a member of the group chat asked to get a copy of the corresponding gazette.
The text read: "I'd love to get a copy of that Gazette, my God, but I have no access."
Following discussions in the chat about police officers being reinstated to their positions after being medically retired for not following vaccine mandates, Ms Secrett wrote: "Will get it for you tomorrow."
Phone conversation played in court
A 20-minute recorded phone conversation between Ms Secrett and her partner was played to the court.
During the conversation, she said sharing the email was an "error of judgement", but did not jeopardise the police force.
"It's not in relation to a particular person or it wasn't jeopardising any investigation or anything," she said during the phone conversation.
"The way that it sounds when you read the news articles, it's like I've disclosed some bloody confidential information in relation to some police matter or investigations.
"It reads really bad … I just can't f***ing believe it."
Despite two members of the group chat saying they were unable to access the Police Gazette, Ms Secrett told her partner she did not know it was confidential, given the NT government's gazette was publicly available.
Towards the end of the phone call, Ms Secrett told her partner she had to be careful about what she said on the phone in case her calls were being screened.
'A number of red flags', prosecution says
The prosecution argued the documents were confidential and that the internal email she shared had been explicitly labelled not for wider publication.
The prosecutor further told the court there were two people in the group chat who said they did not have access to the information.
"The prosecution says there … [are] a number of red flags, if you will, that clearly would've indicated to the defendant that this material, which is being sought, is not publicly available," she said.
Ms McKay also argued Ms Secrett was "reckless" in sharing the information because there were people in the chat she did not know.
She said the disclosure also caused reputational damage to the police force.
Defence lawyer Peter Maley said the documents should not be considered confidential as some of the information contained in them were already in the public domain.
"It's not confidential, it's quite the contrary," he said.
"How could the police complain about this being in the public domain?
"It is most certainly trivial."
The matter will return to court on July 17.
