麻豆淫院

Individual rights may be coming second to a notion of 'collective security' as agencies ramp up their use of information obtained through coercive means, a University of Melbourne study has warned.

Some law enforcement and integrity authorities have coercive powers to compel a person to provide evidence or produce documents.
 
The report, 鈥楬as accountability kept up with the use of coercive powers information?鈥� analyses three cases:

• The matter of Mohammed Haneef, an Indian national wrongly accused by Australian authorities of providing support to a terrorist organization in 2007.
• The Victorian Office of Police Integrity鈥檚 handling of a 2011 complaint by the then Police Chief Commissioner, Simon Overland, against his deputy, Sir Ken Jones.
• A 2011/12 Commission of Inquiry into the New South Wales Crime Commission.

鈥淭hese case studies highlight some of the recent deficiencies in effective accountability,鈥� lead researcher Chris Bonnici said.
 
鈥淚n some instances individual rights weren鈥檛 given due regard, as authorities sought to achieve 鈥榗ollective security鈥�.鈥�
 
The report also highlights the inability of judges to properly test the veracity of information obtained through coercive means when it is used as 鈥榠ntelligence鈥�.
 
It argues strong policies and procedures are necessary to minimize the risk of the illegal or inaccurate use of coercive powers information and to provide an adequate foundation for oversight and review.
 
鈥淚n many instances, accountability has not kept up with significant changes in the use of information from coercive powers by law enforcement agencies,鈥� the report reads.
 
The report doesn鈥檛 propose a specific model to address the identified shortcomings, but recommends a 鈥渕ulti-faceted and inter-related鈥� accountability regime with 鈥渞outine, independent and properly informed oversight鈥�.
 
鈥泪蹿 accountability for the use of coercive powers information does not adapt to these changes then there is a continuing risk to individual rights,鈥� Mr Bonnici said.