By Heather McNeill, Lucy Manly and Gary Adshead Melbourne bar and restaurant owner Hayden Burbank and financial planner Mark…
By Lucy Cormack
A highly secret police strike force has been set up to investigate the conduct of senior police in the NSW drug squad.
The investigation, revealed by News Corp on Thursday, has been coined strike force dominion and was allegedly formed last year to investigate the conduct of detectives and methodologies used.
News Corp states that homes of two senior police officers were raided earlier this week as part of the alleged probe into methods of entrapment used by the squad to target criminal groups involved with illicit drugs.
A police spokeswoman could not comment on the strike force, its objective, or the reported raids, but confirmed State Crime Command had referred a matter to the Professional Standards Command for further investigation.
“Strike Force Dominion has been established by Professional Standards Command and remains an ongoing investigation. No further comment can be provided at this time,” she said.
Q: Is there a defence of entrapment available in Australian law?
By FindLaw Australia
Unlike our common law counterparts in the US, there is no defence of entrapment available under Australian law. However, the defence is available in the States, and American case law has stated that the reason for the existence of the law of entrapment is that a distinction must be made between trapping the unwary innocent, as opposed to the unwary criminal. So the question that needs to be asked is: why isn’t there a similar distinction made in Australian law?
Again, although, there is no defence of entrapment, Mason CJ in Ridgeway v The Queen did note, that if the circumstances surrounding the committing of an offence by an individual was procured by the illegal conduct of the police or any other person, it is still ultimately up to the courts to decide on a person’s innocence or guilt resulting from the trapping.
The facts in Ridgeway revolved around the arrest of John Anthony Ridgeway, who was participating in a ‘controlled importation’ of 140.4 grams of heroin into Australia which was the result of a tipoff from an informer who notified the Australian Federal Police (AFP) of Ridgeway’s intentions. With the assistance of the AFP and the Australian Customs Service, the informer was allowed to pass through customs uninhibited, and delivered the heroin to Ridgeway, which then resulted in his arrest by the AFP.
The High Court Justices in Ridgeway expressed some concerns with the actions of the AFP with McHugh J stating for example:
“In a society predicated on respect for the dignity and rights of individuals, noble ends cannot justify ignoble means … No government in a democratic state has an unlimited right to test the virtue of its citizens. Testing the integrity of citizens can quickly be-come a tool of political oppression an instrument for creating a police state mentality.”
What was most interesting about the Ridgeway case was the general acknowledgement that in facilitating with the importation of heroin into Australia from Malaysia, the AFP had also committed a serious offence against the Customs Act.
Ultimately, the High Court in Ridgeway did state that there was no substantive defence of entrapment as long as a person voluntarily commits the criminal act, and had the necessary intent, irrespective of any inducement by law enforcement officials.
As a result of the High Court action in Ridgeway, the Government amended the Commonwealth Crimes Act,allowing for law enforcement officers to engage in a “controlled operation” to obtain evidence against a person who is involved in a serious State or Commonwealth offence.