Jul 31, 2017

No one told police officer a warrant was needed before spying on journos

The Australian Federal Police told the Commonwealth Ombudsman that, oops, that law change they lobbied for had not been communicated to a police officer.

Josh Taylor — Journalist

Josh Taylor



Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “No one told police officer a warrant was needed before spying on journos

  1. klewso

    So just what is “ill will” when the police are breaking the law – even if in ignorance?

  2. Chris Days

    Just one bad apple. The rest of the barrel is excellent!

  3. Don Willoughby

    When I was a copper in the NSW Police you acted as a sole agent. You did an unlawful act, you were personally responsible and could be criminally charged or civilly sued. It focused the mind but also limited the power of senior officers and politicians to order unlawful acts. Since then law now seemingly indemnifies the officer’s actions (in good faith.) The real reason for the change was to empower political interference.

  4. Ian Roberts

    It’s interesting. to say the least, that this egregious, notable (and perhaps first) breach of this new law wasn’t involving a case of national security but rather concerned a leak of government information to a journalist. While the journalist was entitled to be protected by the requirement of a warrant the rest of us aren’t even afforded that. The details of this data retention acts are an abuse of power and a disgraceful erosion of civil rights such as they are in Australia. That disgrace besmirches not only the coalition government (didn’t someone say they were “liberal”) but all the toady pollies that went along with it.

  5. Graham R

    A total joke. The AFP, and their apparently “negligent” supervisors get the information they wanted all along, and the lowest possible minion is sent for re-training. No senior officer is charged for this egregious breach of the law. Woopsie.

    With this kind of procedural bullshit, plus the fact that a journalist’s data can be collected by investigating the call records of the person they talk to anyway, means there is ZERO protection for journalists.

  6. AR

    Of course nobody who is involved, from the non ill intentioned officer, the brass, the Dep Ombudsman or the pollies, let alone any half sentient citizen reading this believes a word of the excuses, equivocations and reassurances.
    I expect nothing else from the players – that is their day to day business and they will routinely break the law when it suits – but the real villain is the journalistic profession which backed off from criticizing the meta data laws once they’d secured an exemption and were, collectively apparently, dumb enough to believe it.
    Also not very bright not to realise that, even if they were sacrosanct it is the simplest thing in the world to work backward from the poor, unprotect lumpen, to them.
    Enjoy your status for the moment, it is a total illusion and don’t start whining and expect us to care – as with the recent jobs shedding by the dead tree brigade when you’d been complicit for decades – when you start having your collars felt.
    You will be offered deals, to become even more embedded and compromised and what odds that most will not succumb to the cozy arrangement?
    The Evil of Banality.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details