Promoting people's rights and civil liberties. It is non-party political and independent of other organisations.
Crime watch

Crime watch

Possibly after quaffing too much of Jack Pomeroy’s Chateau Fleet Street, Patrick Jones (Letters, August 13), misses the point of recent criticism of the ACT’s Crimes (Controlled Operations) legislation.

Possibly after quaffing too much of Jack Pomeroy’s Chateau Fleet Street, Patrick Jones (Letters, August 13), misses the point of recent criticism of the ACT’s Crimes (Controlled Operations) legislation.

What Jennifer’ Saunders and others are saying is that a society in which all members are subject equally to the rule of law, we must guard against vesting in the police discretionary powers that, for practical purposes, amount to powers to dispense with the compliance with the law.

It is not the function of the police to make the law, or to decide by whom, and to what extent, the law is to be obeyed.

And in allowing the police such discretionary powers, corruption can flourish.

Police corruption has a long history in Australia – arguably starting from the Rum Corps.
More recent inquiries such as the Fitzgerald and Wood royal commissions, and the current difficulties in the Victoria Police, show that police corruption is still as much of a problem today as it was in John Macarthur’s day.

The new ACT legislation gives oversight of its operation to the Ombudsman.

However, the Ombudsman now relies on the Australian Federal Police to investigate itself.
Thus, any claims of independent oversight are undermined by the Ombudsman lacking his own investigative capacity.

Rather than pass contentious legislation on the run-up to an election, the ACT Government should instead establish a statutory-based and independent ACT Law Reform Commission, the purpose of which would be to generally make recommendations to reform the current law. The conduct of police
operations would make an ideal first commission referral.

None of this criticism detracts from the importance and the difficulty of tasks that the community expects to be performed by members of its police forces.

We should bear in mind that the police deserve our support and encouragement.
Our expectations of them are high, and we should be ready to praise success as well as criticise failure.

Don Malcolmson, Bywong, NSW 

Letter to the Editor Canberra Times 15 Aug 08

The above letter was in support of the following letter that appeared in the Sunday Canberra Times on 10 Aug 08 by Jennifer Saunders.

 

Law change a folly

I was astonished to hear the president of the Law Society of the ACT supporting changes to the law which mean that Australian Federal Police officers in ”undercover” operations can now break the law.

The legal profession is supposed to be a bulwark against the worst excesses of the state, so let’s make it clear that the president doesn’t speak for me.

The Attorney General said we need this legislation to keep up with the police in NSW and other states.

Has it escaped attention that these states have had major inquiries and royal commissions into police corruption and that they continue to have major problems, particularly in areas in which ”undercover” police operate, namely drugs, vice, prostitution, firearms.

These police, by definition, do not wear uniforms and are disguised and the obvious temptations must be enormous. So it seems complete folly to then provide them with an indemnity from prosecution for breaking the law they are supposed to be upholding.

Jennifer Saunders, Perkins and Saunders barrister and solicitor, Civic

Letter to the Editor Sunday Canberra Times  10 Aug 08

 

Updated 25 Aug 08:

Justice the victim in reforms – opinion piece in the Canbberra Times (14 Aug 08) by Shane Gill (Barrister).

 

Leave a Reply

Translate »