Media Release – Independent Inquiry Into Police Surveillance

Independent Member for Nelson Meg Webb has repeated her call for a truly independent Inquiry to be established into electronic surveillance by Tasmania Police.

“This is a matter of urgency to ensure ongoing trust and confidence in the Tasmania Police and the administration of justice in this State,” Ms Webb said.

“The actions of Tasmania Police while undertaking a surveillance operation as part of an investigation into solicitor, Jeffrey Thompson, have been identified as illegal and involved the violation of a fundamental right to privacy of an unknown number of persons including the recording of legally privileged conversations.

“They are apparently an example of systemic failures and lack of compliance over time, have not yet been investigated, nor has an appropriately independent and comprehensive form of investigation been proposed by the Government.

“This situation is entirely unsatisfactory and jeopardises public confidence in the administration of justice in this State.

 Webb said it’s highly concerning this illegal surveillance activity and breach of privacy only came to light five years after it occurred.

“It did not come to light through legislated reporting and accountability mechanisms, but through a protracted legal proceeding against an individual, which was later dropped by the State.

“We must examine and question how effective are the accountability and oversight mechanisms that apply in Tasmania.”

Ms Webb said perhaps it is time for more targeted and specific accountability mechanisms to be considered here in Tasmania, such as the Public Interest Monitor or Surveillance Devices Commissioner as in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

“Or Tasmania could require the authorisation for a warrant from a senior officer, as in other States.”

Ms Webb said Tasmania Police announced a review by Michael O’Farrell SC to “ensure that appropriate processes have been followed”.

“The scope of this proposed review is insufficient and compromised by a perceived conflict of interest, as Mr O’Farrell was Tasmanian Solicitor-General at the time of the incident and advising government agencies such as Tasmania Police.

“I call for Mr O’Farrell to step aside from the inappropriate Tasmania Police-commissioned review, in the interests of confidence in the administration of justice in this State.”

Ms Webb said she intends no reflection on Mr O’Farrell personally or professionally.

“I make this call purely on the basis of the inescapable perception of a conflict of interest and the impossibility that it can be seen as appropriately independent in the eyes of the Tasmanian public or this Parliament.”

Ms Web also called out the role of Attorney-General Elise Archer.

“Where is the Attorney-General in all this mess? Her role as First Law Officer with primary responsibility for the administration of justice in this state, not to mention that she is responsible for administering the relevant legislation in this matter, places responsibility for an appropriate response from the State Government squarely on her shoulders.

“Why is the Attorney-General not guaranteeing accountability and establishing a truly independent inquiry into the use of electronic surveillance by police in this Tasmania?”

Ms Webb said the only credible and appropriate option to restore public confidence is an independent inquiry commissioned by the Government.

“This needs to be undertaken genuinely at arms-length and with an appropriately comprehensive terms of reference to fully address the scope of this issue. An appropriate option would be an inquiry by someone such as a respected retired interstate Judge who has no connection with Tasmania and with no pre-existing connections to Tasmania Police.”

Ms Webb proposed Terms of Reference for a comprehensive and genuinely independent Inquiry.

Potential Inquiry Terms of Reference:

To inquire into the practices of Tasmania Police in:

A. seeking warrants for the use of covert surveillance under the Listening Devices Act 1991 and the Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2005 (“the Acts”);
B. executing such warrants;
C. internal police oversight of the seeking and execution of such warrants, compliance with reporting mechanisms under the Acts, and other oversight mechanisms – in particular, without limiting the scope of the inquiry, what the Tasmanian Government should do to:

I. better protect confidentiality, privacy, and privileges recognised in Part 10 of the Evidence Act 2001;
II. achieve best practice in the seeking and execution of such warrants, and oversight of the same;
III. eliminate or reduce conflict and duplication between statutory provisions under different Acts of Parliament governing the use of covert surveillance methods, in particular by the repeal of existing Acts and the enactment of a single Act of Parliament;
IV. Investigate the enactment of specific statutory mechanisms to require notification to members of the public who have been the subject of improper or illegal covert surveillance methods, and recourse for the same.

The Inquiry is directed to make any recommendations arising out of its inquiry process that it considers appropriate, including recommendations about any policy, legislative, administrative or structural reforms.