Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 30 November 2004
Page: 66

Senator LUDWIG (4:43 PM) —I think the situation outlined is where someone has unlawfully put in something such as a surveillance device. I guess we could name one of them, but we will use the broad example of surveillance devices, which covers all of them. If they have done it unlawfully, it would seem inappropriate for them to then go and get a search warrant, sneak back in—although I am sure the law enforcement officers will object to me using that expression—and retrieve it. It would seem more sensible for them to put up their hand and say, `We've unlawfully installed a device.' The person may then want to claim that device and use it in civil proceedings for the unlawful installation or for whatever might be on it, but that is a matter for a future occurrence. I do not want to encourage any litigation.

It would be more sensible, more proper and more appropriate for the police. I think even the judge in that instance would say, `Well, if it was unlawfully installed, you need to put your hand up and go and tell the people that that's what's happened and follow due process'—wherever that might lead them—rather than try to use the statute to retrieve an unlawfully installed device. I think if that has occurred—it might be for a technicality or for a whole range of issues: wrong place, wrong time or whatever it might be—that is the better and more appropriate way to deal with it.