Re: Reasonable Doubt
Your defence lawyer stands up, does his thing and references the act
At which point he is arrested under this act and the trial restarted with a new Jury.
I think this is where the lawyer asks the witness/defendant a question which does not necessarily adduce or imply interception activities, but which requires them to give an awkward answer - such as "I cannot answer that without committing an offence".
If the judge were a sensible type who was as cynical of this legislation as the rest of us (and they do exist - see the judge in the ABC trial who threw the whole case out because the security services were playing silly buggers), they might then require that the question be answered honestly and without perjury. The witness would then be faced with a quandry - commit perjury and be in contempt of court (by refusing to comply with the court's demand), or commit an offence under the IPA.
I would suggest that many courts would be unwilling to convict someone of an offence under the IPA when they were compelled to make that disclosure by order of the court in the first instance.
It would require a carefully worded approach and a sufficiently inclined judge to make it a court matter, but a smart barrister should be able to come up with something.
If you had a sympathetic MP they could also use parliamentary privilege to ask about the case in Parliament, and the lawyer might be able to then ask a witness about that public domain statement. I'm sure there are clever ways to "launder" the question - if the NSA can launder intelligence, barristers can launder questions!