Lawyers for journalist and sports marketing expert Charlie Charters will tell the High Court that the confidentiality of journalistic sources is protected by Fiji’s Constitution and common law, as they challenge the re-seizure of his electronic devices.
Fatiaki Law has filed the High Court application following the re-seizure of seven devices which Charters says contain confidential journalistic material, information capable of identifying sources and communications with his legal advisers.
Central to the application is the protection afforded to journalists and their sources.
“The confidentiality of journalistic sources is protected by sections 17 and 24 of the Constitution and at common law,” the application states.
Charters’ lawyers also rely on findings made by the High Court in its July 24 ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 12 of 2026.
The application argues there is a valid legal claim for the devices and their contents to be treated as privileged or confidential because they are Charters’ personal electronic devices and contain material obtained or received in the course of his journalism.
It says the material includes communications and information “capable of identifying the persons with whom he has so communicated”.
The lawyers argue Charters cannot identify those individuals or provide particulars of the confidential material without defeating the very confidentiality he is asking the court to protect.
Fatiaki Law also says a claim of privilege and confidentiality was made at the time of seizure and that the seizing officer was provided with a copy of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
According to the application, because the electronic devices record and store information, they constitute documents for the purposes of section 103.
The lawyers contend that once the claim was made, section 103(2) required the person holding the devices to seal them and have them delivered to the Registrar of the High Court.
The application says Charters is unaware of any compliance with that requirement.
His lawyers have also raised questions about the latest search warrant, claiming both the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant and the warrant itself are undated.
They further claim the documents do not identify any particular investigation or provide details capable of informing Charters of the legal and factual basis on which the warrant was obtained.
The High Court application follows the re-seizure of the devices after Police had earlier been ordered to return them to Charters’ lawyer.
The claims concerning privilege, confidentiality and the validity and execution of the latest seizure are now matters before the High Court.
