Search Archive
Search Justinian
Justinian's news stories

Family Court - facts v fiction ... "Sources close to the Family Court" prepare a fact sheet that shoots holes in "Christian" Porter's case for abolishing the court ... Lies, damn lies and blatant falsities ... Pitch for survival as judges mount the battlements ... Here's the judges' fact sheet, in full ... Read more ... 


Free Newsletter sign-up
Justinian Columnists

Rhodes scholars ... A gaggle of judges invade Rhodes ... The significance of Hellenism to contemporary legal issues ... Personal injury and audio-visual technology ... SA barristers stamping their tiny feet for QC gongs ... Murray Darling royal commission running out of water ... Procrustes files ... Read more ... 


 

 

This form does not yet contain any fields.

    "What we are attempting to achieve here is not the abolition of any court, but the merging of two courts ... so we can get the best practice consistently applied to all family law matters ..."

    Attorney General Christian Porter on his federal courts reform, which will see an end to the Family Court of Australia and a Federal Circuit Court approach to all family law cases. The Australian, August 17, 2018 ... Read more flatulence ... 


    Justinian Featurettes

    Life of Clive ... Clive Evatt leader of the defamation bar - RIP ... Passionate about plaintiffs, yet gave significant leg-ups to defendants ... Charming, wily and unrelenting ... The Evatt business model ... Dubious clients and desperate cases ... Thoughts from colleagues and opponents ... Read more ... 


    Justinian's archive

    Delirious news for lawyers and the hoi polloi ... Evan Whitton ... The first step for the Academy of Law is to uncover why lawyers are doomed to be unloved ... A missing staple comes as a reminder that process trumps truth ... From Justinian's archive, July 16, 2007 ... Read more ... 


     

    « Closing time at the bar n' grill | Main | PIC picks on punters »
    Friday
    Nov282014

    NSW terror powers rarely used

    Heightened terror alert, but the Ombudsman finds that preventative detention powers were never used between 2011 and 2013 ... Covert search warrant powers rarely used ... Crime Commission says it doesn't want covert search powers ... Improvements urged ... Nina Ubaldi reports  

    Police raids in September reawakened the unused preventative detention powers

    EARLIER this month the NSW Ombudsman's review of anti-terrorism powers was tabled in parliament. Somewhat prematurely the Ombo observed in his report prepared two months earlier: 

    "Preventative detention regimes have never been used in any Australian jurisdiction."  

    The inactivity appeared to dampen the political case for the extensive powers, which allow police to detain people without charge to prevent an imminent terrorist act, or preserve evidence of terrorist acts. 

    The powers are due to expire in NSW on December 16, 2015. 

    The Ombudsman asked the Attorney General: 

    "To consider whether there is an ongoing need for the NSW Police Force to retain powers of preventative detention in light of the powers not having been used and the other powers available to police to respond to and investigate terrorism." 

    The report canvassed the questions: did the dormancy of the powers indicate their limited utility or, as argued by the Police Commissioner, illustrate the restraint of NSW police?

    These questions soon lost some of their force. Within the month, the Supreme Court had ordered preventative detention orders against three men as part of September's counter terrorism raids.

    This was not lost on NSW Attorney General Brad Hazzard. Responding to the tabling of the Ombudsman's report in NSW parliament, Hazzard warned that in the context of Australia's high security alert, the powers may be required again.

    However, the report only addressed the use of anti-terrorism powers between 2011 and 2013. This was the Ombudsman's third such review, required by statute every three years.

    The report examined two police powers under NSW terror legislation - preventative detention orders and covert search warrants. Preventative detention orders were introduced at the state and federal level following the London bombings in 2005. 

    Orders under Commonwealth legislation are limited to 48 hours because of constitutional concerns surrounding prolonged detention. However, under NSW legislation a person can be held for up to 14 days. Unlike in the United Kingdom, detainees cannot be questioned.

    The Ombudsman also considered the use of covert search warrants, which allow police and the NSW Crime Commission to search premises without the occupiers' knowledge. 

    NSW police have applied for just five covert search orders, all in 2005. Police executed three of the orders, resulting in the conviction of five men who had built-up stockpiles of ammunition and bomb-making materials. 

    The Crime Commission says it doesn't want the covert search powers, as it doesn't have sufficient trained staff or resources to execute them. 

    The Ombo recommends the AG consider removing those powers from the Crime Commission. 

    Focussing most of its attention on PDOs, the Ombudsman noted a number of improvements in the procedures surrounding the use of the powers. 

    The report commended, for example, the clarification that young people (aged 16 or 17) cannot be held in adult correctional centres. The report also welcomed moves to protect detainees from unwanted media exposure following their release. 

    However, the Ombudsman remained critical of the operation of PDOs in a number of respects. 

    Nine years on, Corrective Services had not yet finalised its procedures for enforcing preventative detention orders. On November 11, Hazzard responded to these concerns assuring "the community that Corrective Services NSW has operational guidelines in place to manage those subject to a PDO". 

    The report also questioned the interaction of state and federal powers noting, "the apparent lack of guidance through a [memorandum of understanding] or some other more detailed interagency procedures is concerning".

    Significantly, the report questioned the need for the powers altogether. Similar powers exist under ordinary policing statutes. Most, but not all, terrorism offences for example, could trigger the power to search covertly in the investigation of designated serious offences. 

    The Ombudsman also addressed three areas where PDOs served an important function - where police lacked sufficient evidence to arrest a person (the stated rationale behind the use of the powers in the September terror raids), where associates of terrorists may be tipped off, and where highly sensitive material was at risk of disclosure. 

    Although in each case the report suggested that these concerns could be mitigated, allowing PDOs to lapse would leave a gap in law enforcement powers. 

    In the words of the Ombudsman: 

    "The key issue then becomes whether this gap is of such magnitude and significance that it justifies the continuation of these extraordinary powers". 

    See: Review of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 

    Reader Comments

    There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Editor Permission Required
    You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.