High Court Backs AFP Use of AN0M App in Operation Ironside
The High Court of Australia has upheld the use of encrypted-app evidence collected by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during Operation Ironside, ruling that messages obtained through the AN0M app were lawfully used and that Parliament’s “confirmation law” validating that evidence is constitutionally sound.
What Was Operation Ironside?
Operation Ironside was a joint AFP–FBI sting run between 2018 and 2021.
Authorities secretly distributed phones containing an encrypted messaging app called AN0M, which appeared secure but sent every message to law enforcement.
More than 28 million messages were intercepted globally.
Over 350 Australians were charged with drug trafficking, money-laundering, and firearms offences.
In South Australia alone, around 115 defendants faced charges linked to the app.
Defendants later argued the AFP had intercepted communications unlawfully under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth).
The Legal Challenge
Two accused men asked the High Court to:
Exclude AN0M evidence, claiming it breached interception laws.
Strike down new legislation that retrospectively confirmed the lawfulness of that evidence.
That legislation—the Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Act—was passed after earlier lower-court uncertainty about the warrants used in Operation Ironside.
The High Court’s Findings
The High Court dismissed both arguments, finding that:
AN0M evidence remains admissible. The app’s data collection was covered by valid warrants and lawful AFP cooperation with the FBI.
The “confirmation law” is constitutional. Parliament did not interfere with judicial power; it simply clarified how existing law applied.
The Court said the statute did not dictate a particular outcome in any ongoing case—it merely confirmed that evidence gathered under those warrants was not illegally obtained.
Why It Matters
For prosecutors
The ruling clears the way for hundreds of Operation Ironside prosecutions to proceed across Australia. Courts can now rely on AN0M messages as legitimate evidence.
For defence lawyers
Future challenges based solely on the method of data collection are unlikely to succeed. Defence strategies must instead focus on factual disputes, chain of custody, or the reliability of specific messages.
For the legal system
The decision confirms that Parliament can clarify the legal framework around digital surveillance without breaching the Constitution, provided it does not instruct courts on individual verdicts.
What This Means for the Public
The High Court’s endorsement of AN0M marks a turning point in Australian cyber-crime and surveillance law.
It signals strong judicial support for law-enforcement innovation against organised crime—even where new technology blurs the line between privacy and policing.
Key Takeaways
AN0M evidence is admissible in Australian criminal prosecutions.
The High Court unanimously upheld the AFP’s use of encrypted-app surveillance.
Constitutional objections to the government’s validation law were rejected.
Need Expert Criminal Law Advice?
If you or someone you know has been charged under Operation Ironside, or any other organised-crime, or have been subject to surveillance, it’s crucial to obtain specialist legal advice early.
On Your Behalf can help you understand your rights, review evidence, and guide you through complex federal and state legislation.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
This OYBlog was created with AI assistance based on the following source: ‘High Court backs use of encrypted app to monitor crime figures after challenge by bikies’