ACT Integrity Commission was taken to the ACT Supreme Court this month. Photo: Supplied.
The ACT Integrity Commission has had a legal win after a senior political staffer failed in his attempt to stop the watchdog from looking at the contents of his mobile phone.
The matter related to how the commission had been investigating the procurement of building works for Campbell High School under Operation Kingfisher, Justice David Mossop told the ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday (26 August).
In October 2023, David Ferguson, the now-chief of staff for ACT Treasurer Chris Steel, gave evidence to the commission before he was told to give evidence again in June 2025.
While giving evidence on this occasion, he was given a summons to immediately produce his mobile phone.
As he had to go back home to collect it, he was told an officer from the commission would go with him to obtain it.
He and the officer travelled together to his home, then he got the phone and gave it to them. He also provided his PIN code when asked.
The commission extracted the data from the phone, then returned it, but in the meantime, Mr Ferguson filed a case against the commission in the Supreme Court.
He focused on four decisions by the commission: the summons to examine his phone, the requirement to immediately produce it, forcing an officer to travel with him to collect it and not returning the contents of the phone to him.
He claimed he was falsely imprisoned during the trip to get his phone, and the officer trespassed into his home when coming inside to get it.
He also claimed the contents of his phone were covered by legal privilege as it contained information on the advice he had given to clients as a lawyer in California.
Mr Ferguson filed an injunction to try to stop the commission from viewing the phone’s contents.
Justice Mossop ultimately found the grounds of his six claims in his case against the commission were not obviously strong, but did find there were serious questions to be tried from some of the claims, including on the issue around legal privilege and whether the officer had trespassed onto his property.
He also said that if an injunction was granted, it may impede the investigations of a long-running inquiry, and there was a public interest in allowing the commission to complete and report on its investigation.
“[Mr Ferguson] is not a central figure in the investigation,” he said.
He did not think the interlocutory relief sought by Mr Ferguson should be granted.
The judge dismissed the application for an injunction, reserved the question of costs and listed the substantive proceedings in the case to appear again in court on 1 September.
Last time I heard, the gov was saying there was a supply problem. Now this. Wouldn't this be pushing… View