"You can't challenge evidence you can't understand."
Isn't that what your (attorney/solicitor/barrister, delete as appropriate) is for?
(And, sure, I'm a US citizen and therefore have the right to hold my peace and speak only through an attorney, and no doubt Australia doesn't have the precise equivalent. That said, given that their law and jurisprudence derive from the same source as ours do, I'd be astonished to learn that that fine nation doesn't offer its citizens substantially the same protections -- including the presumptive suppression of anything otherwise potentially or actually incriminating that's uttered by someone who has not been advised he has the right not to do so. A quick perusal of Wikipedia on the subject, which I grant is not always reliable but in broad strokes tends to be reasonably so, certainly seems to indicate as much.)
Of course I'll never argue that Anonymous is anything save the meanest gutter scum of the Internet -- given their 4chan origins, they could hardly be otherwise. But it does not behoove one, who is arguing against their style of anarchistic mob "justice", to misrepresent the nature of the law, or of the evidentiary requirements the law imposes on police.