CHAPTER 5 | looking at the agencies

Law enforcement menu: An increasingly complex jurisdiction | Australian Federal Police | An effective complaints system | Special investigations | AFP complaints outreach program | Australian Protective Service | Australian Crime Commission | Monitoring activities

There has been significant legislative change in recent years to enlarge the powers of federal law enforcement agencies, specifically the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Protective Service (APS). This change has partly been a response to a new security environment. It is also being driven by the objective of ensuring effective and efficient detection of crime, particularly serious crime. The legislation granting additional powers to law enforcement agencies includes measures to ensure that the right of people to complain to the Ombudsman about law enforcement activity and the ability of the Ombudsman to investigate any such complaints, are not diminished.

Broadly stated, the role of the Ombudsman's office is to review the handling of complaints about Australian Government law enforcement agencies and to oversight the use by agencies of coercive and intrusive powers. Table 5.1 lists the activities that come within the Ombudsman's independent complaint and oversight role and the legislative underpinning for each role.

An increasingly complex jurisdiction

The Commonwealth legislative framework for law enforcement can be expected to change even more in the next few years in ways that are relevant to the work of the Ombudsman. An example is the additional power conferred on law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism by detaining suspected terrorists. Other examples are the proposed introduction of a national framework for the use of surveillance devices and for a register of child sex offenders. As a result, the Ombudsman's office has been more actively engaged during 2003–04 in reviewing how the Ombudsman's complaint and oversight role should be adjusted to take account of changes in law enforcement activity. The following discussion takes up this theme.

Law enforcement across borders

Criminal activity is not constrained by State and Territory boundaries. An abiding danger in a federal system is that the existence of a different legal system in each State can frustrate the investigation of crime across borders. The legislative response to 'cross-border' crime has been to develop suites of model legislation that allow for the 'mutual recognition' of certain law enforcement activities between participating jurisdictions.

'… a strong focus on the importance of developing appropriate accountability mechanisms for law enforcement powers.'

In November 2003, the Joint Working Group of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) released a report on model ('harmonised') legislation relating to surveillance devices, controlled operations, the protection of witness identity, and assumed identities. In considering the APMC report, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General resolved that it should also consider a report from the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioners on cross-border law enforcement activity, which canvassed:

• whether there are gaps at national, State or Territory level in the accountability framework relating to the investigation and handling of complaints or the carrying out of accountability audits
  
  
• whether there is also a need for 'harmonisation' of the laws and administrative arrangements to allow independent oversight, monitoring and accountability
  
  
• what measures are necessary to address any identified legislative impediments to joint investigation and monitoring by oversight agencies.

The report by the Commonwealth and State Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioners to the Standing Committee represents a significant collaborative effort on their part, and signals a strong focus on the importance of developing appropriate accountability mechanisms for law enforcement powers.

The Australian Government is well advanced in developing the first legislation in the suite of harmonised law enforcement powers (for the use of surveillance devices). The Commonwealth Ombudsman has been involved in consultations between agencies about the Surveillance Devices Bill 2004, which was still being considered by Parliament.

AFP powers to combat terrorism

Amendments made in 2003 to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) provided for the entry and search of property by police (including the AFP) in order to arrest and detain persons on behalf of ASIO.

'… a detainee can contact the office's Law Enforcement Team 24 hours per day.'

The ASIO Act amendments created a new complaints role for the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 (Complaints Act), by allowing a detainee to complain about the actions of AFP members making an arrest or overseeing detention.

We took steps to ensure that a detainee can contact the office's Law Enforcement Team 24 hours per day. We are also working with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commissioner of the AFP to develop protocols between all agencies involved with warrants under the ASIO Act. These protocols will ensure that detainees are advised of their right to make a complaint, are provided with access to a telephone for that purpose, and that all agencies understand and agree on the complaint-management process.

We have not received any complaints arising from the amendments, which commenced on 23 July 2003.

Police accountability mechanisms

The Complaints Act has been operating for 23 years, and has proved to be a solid foundation for the investigation of complaints about the AFP. The Act will also form the basis for the complaints management system for the Australian Protective Service on its integration with the AFP integrity regime on 1 July 2004.

'The Complaints Act has been operating for 23 years, and has proved to be a solid foundation for the investigation of complaints about the AFP.'

The Complaints Act and the AFP's integrity management framework were subjected to a review by the Hon. William Fisher AO QC in 2002–03, A Review of Professional Standards in the Australian Federal Police (2003) (the Fisher Review). The Fisher Review also evaluated the models of other police oversight agencies. Among the recommendations in the report were some to refresh the legislative base for the AFP complaints system. The report was tabled in Parliament in December 2003.

The Kennedy Royal Commission into corruption in the Western Australian Police Service undertook a similar review in Western Australia during the year. In a report presented in January 2004, the Commission recommended sweeping changes in police oversight mechanisms, drawing strongly on the conclusions of the Fisher Review.

There were similar developments in Victoria in 2003–4, stemming from a concern about police corruption. The Victorian Government responded by significantly increasing the powers and resources available to the Victorian Ombudsman to investigate police corruption in that state. The statutory powers newly granted to the Victorian Ombudsman match those already held by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. However, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office has customarily seen its role as one of administrative review and oversight, not corruption investigation. At the same time, there is a thread that links administrative misbehaviour and official corruption.

The AFP more appropriately deals with some complaints against police as management issues without the direct involvement of the Ombudsman's office. Under the Fisher model, the Ombudsman's involvement in minor complaints about the AFP would be reduced and attention would be focused on handling more serious complaints. This model is well established in New South Wales and Queensland and is to be introduced in Western Australia. The Australian Government has yet to respond to the Fisher Review and details of implementing the Fisher model are yet to be finalised.

The Ombudsman is confident that the Fisher Review and the office's review of the relevant Acts (see 'Year in review' chapter) are an appropriate response to the need to modernise the AFP complaints system.

Complaint handling

The major activity of the Ombudsman's office during the year in regard to law enforcement was to perform its accustomed roles of handling complaints about law enforcement agencies and conduct external reviews of AFP internal investigations.

As well, we were involved in two significant special investigations into complaints about the AFP and the APS. The investigations highlighted the role that can be played by the Ombudsman when police corruption is alleged or suspected. Although corrupt activity was not revealed in either case, such a finding is nevertheless important in its own right in bolstering public confidence that allegations of corruption have been properly investigated and eliminated if they are not soundly based.

'… investigations highlighted the special role that can be played by the Ombudsman when police corruption is alleged or suspected.'

Corruption allegations were made during the year against two officers of the ACC. We again brought an independent mind to the issue by reviewing whether the Commission had itself conducted a proper investigation of the allegations. Our role in doing so is discussed below (see 'Australian Crime Commission' section).

The remainder of this section provides an overview of the activities undertaken by the Ombudsman's office this year in relation to the three law enforcement agencies that fall within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The oversight of AFP complaint handling constitutes the majority of our work in law enforcement, largely because of the AFP's relative size, its high level of interaction with the public (especially through community policing in the ACT) and because of the requirement, specific to the AFP, that certain types of complaints about the AFP be disclosed to the Ombudsman for external assessment.

Australian Federal Police

Under the Complaints Act, the responsibility for investigating complaints about the AFP is shared between the AFP and the Ombudsman. The AFP's Professional Standards investigates most complaints about AFP members; the Ombudsman reviews all AFP investigations and, if appropriate, conducts an independent inquiry or investigation.

Complaints about the actions of the AFP can be made direct to the Ombudsman's office or to the AFP. As the Ombudsman's main role is to ensure that all complaints are satisfactorily managed, the Ombudsman is notified of all complaints promptly. When complaints are finalised, the AFP provides a report to the Ombudsman explaining how the complaint was managed or investigated. Approximately 70% of all complaints received about the AFP relate to ACT Policing, with the remaining complaints relating to the AFP's corporate, national and international roles. It is natural that a high number of complaints are made about ACT Policing because of the level of public interaction involved in community policing work. Most complaints are of a relatively minor nature and concern alleged conduct of police, such as incivility or rudeness.

The Complaints Act allows the AFP to conciliate complaints of a less serious nature directly with complainants through its workplace resolution process; where this is done, a senior police officer conciliates the complaint in the relevant workplace. This process combines the benefits of direct accountability with the opportunity to learn from mistakes. A minor mistake by a police officer that warrants an apology or explanation can often be easily conciliated with the complainant without the need for the Ombudsman's intervention. Complaints that potentially reveal more significant matters, such as alleged serious misconduct or a substantial breakdown in procedure, require a more comprehensive response.

'Most complaints … concern the alleged conduct of police, such as incivility or rudeness.'

While the Ombudsman investigates some matters that are not appropriate for the AFP to examine, the Complaints Act contemplates that AFP Professional Standards will investigate most serious complaints. Ombudsman staff have the opportunity to consult with the AFP during an investigation about the progress of a complaint. It is then our role to review the evidence gathered in the investigation, consider the findings and recommendations, and inform the complainant of the outcome. Ombudsman staff provide independent scrutiny, paying particular attention to the thoroughness of the AFP investigation and deciding whether further investigation is necessary.

Appropriate investigation and resolution of complaints about serious concerns is an important anti-corruption measure. Complaints may provide a crucial source of information about police corruption, and can also act as an early-warning system for practices and procedures that are failing to deliver desirable outcomes. An organisation that takes complaints seriously and deals with them effectively can maintain public confidence.

In reviewing AFP investigation reports, we found most reports showed a comprehensive investigation and analysis, resulting in reasonable and appropriate recommendations. On a small number of occasions the reports were returned to the AFP for further action, such as a quality assurance review of the report or further clarification of a particular issue. We continue to work with the AFP to ensure that complaint investigation reports represent a robust response to complaint issues.

Complaints overview

In 2003–04, the Ombudsman's office received 712 complaints about the AFP, compared to 737 in 2002–03, a decrease of 3%. There was also a decrease in complaints finalised, to 664 from 718 in the previous year (down 7.5%). Fluctuations in complaint numbers have occurred over the past five years, as shown in Figure 5.8.

Complaints can contain a number of issues, each requiring separate investigation and possibly resulting in a different outcome. Analysis of complaint complexity, as indicated by the number of issues raised per complaint, shows that on average complainants consistently include between one and two issues per complaint.

An effective complaints system

Ombudsman staff meet on a weekly basis with the AFP to discuss complaints and emerging issues, and to develop a better understanding of police policy and practices. During the year, we explored possible improvements to our complaint-handling systems under the Complaints Act. Some of the outcomes are reported below.

Pathways to remedies for complaints

In 2003–04, a significant proportion of cases, that in past years might have been investigated by AFP Professional Standards, were investigated by management within the AFP's workplace resolution process. These cases typically revealed errors made in good faith, a misunderstanding of police powers, or other unsatisfactory performance elements, as opposed to corrupt intent. Had these matters been investigated, the outcome would have been no different, but most likely would have resulted in a delay in investigation and unnecessary expense.

Even when the result of a workplace resolution process may not be the outcome sought by the complainant, the process is nearly always beneficial. Improved understanding is achieved and the complainant is given an opportunity to discuss the matter directly with senior police. For example, a person may believe that police should not be able to place an intoxicated person in protective custody when no offence has been committed. The complainant may not accept the decision made in the individual case, but will be better informed as to the difficulty of the issue.

Our preliminary assessment is that this approach has led to improved outcomes for complainants and the accountability framework as a whole.

Decisions not to investigate further

One of the roles of the Ombudsman under the Complaints Act is to determine in each case whether further investigative effort, or indeed any investigative effort, is warranted, having regard to all relevant circumstances. The AFP cannot terminate a complaint investigation without the agreement of the Ombudsman's office.

'One of the roles of the Ombudsman under the Complaints Act is to determine … whether further investigative effort … is warranted …'

As a general rule we would consider that it is unproductive and an ineffective use of limited Ombudsman staff resources to investigate a matter if:

• the complainant is not committed to using the conciliation process or the nature of the complaint has not been properly detailed
• a complaint includes insufficient evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be reached
• relevant documents or witnesses are no longer available.

As detailed in Table 2 in the 'Statistics' section, there was an increase in the number of issues we decided not to investigate on receipt of a complaint or after making preliminary inquiries (222 or 24%, compared with 17% the previous year). This allowed Ombudsman staff to devote more time to ensuring that issues warranting investigation received appropriate attention. Taking this approach has resulted in a decrease in the number of conciliations attempted and an increase in the success rate, with a corresponding increase in the number of preliminary inquiries and decisions not to investigate at the outset.

Critical incident reporting

The investigation of some complaints is 'time-critical', usually because of the need to preserve evidence or prevent collusion. The effectiveness of the current Complaints Act accountability system is heavily dependent on having a protocol between the Ombudsman's office and the AFP to ensure disclosure of critical incidents.

A critical incident is a crisis event, in which police action had or could have had a serious, adverse effect on a member of the public, particularly an incident that could lead to the death or serious injury of a person in police custody. AFP Professional Standards contacts us as soon as possible in such a circumstance to determine what investigative response we consider appropriate.

One critical incident was reported to the Ombudsman during the year—the death of a person in the ACT resulting from a crash of a car that had been pursued at high speed by an AFP vehicle. We provided input to the initial stages of the AFP investigation to ensure that all relevant evidence was secured, and that the AFP's investigation considered the possibility that police (or police practices) contributed to the death. This matter is subject to a coronial investigation in the ACT.

Special investigations

During the year, Ombudsman staff worked on four special investigations under powers conferred by the Complaints Act. One of the special investigations, conducted jointly with the AFP, was carried over from the previous year. Two of the investigations were finalised in 2003–04 and the other two will be completed in 2004–05. The two investigations completed this year are reported below.

National Witness Protection Program

We investigated certain aspects of the AFP's administration of the National Witness Protection Program (NWPP) that had come under criticism in a matter before a court. The specific complaint related to the provision by the AFP of a substitute medical certificate to a court that excused a key witness from attending a committal hearing in Sydney. A doctor employed by the AFP, who had not sighted the witness, had issued the medical certificate. The concern was that the AFP had sought to mislead the court in order to secure an adjournment for the prosecution.

A special investigation by the Ombudsman's office concluded that the creation of a second certificate, though done in good faith, was ill advised. There was no evidence to support the contention that the witness or the AFP was attempting to avoid an appearance before the court. While the AFP did not initially disclose all information to the court about the creation of the second certificate, the AFP did not mislead the court about the health of the witness.

In reporting to the AFP, the Ombudsman recommended several changes to NWPP procedures to accommodate the needs of the court, but without compromising a witness's assumed identity (consistent with the Witness Protection Act 1994).

Allegation of assault and false charges

The focus of a special investigation completed during the year was a complaint that the AFP and the Australian Protective Service (APS) (the complainant's employer) had conspired to bring false charges against the complainant relating to the falsification of time sheets that had resulted in a significant overpayment of wages. The complainant had alleged that the charges were in retaliation for being a whistleblower at work. Some weeks before his scheduled court trial in 2002, the complainant was found dead in his flat. In the previous week, he had phoned the emergency number, alleging that an AFP officer had assaulted him.

A team of investigators, drawn from Ombudsman staff and the AFP and reporting to the Ombudsman, investigated the allegations of assault and laying of false charges, and tried to identify any whistleblowing in which the complainant might have been involved. The Ombudsman accepted that there was no evidence to support any of the complainant's allegations.

The New South Wales Coroner is currently inquiring into the complainant's death. Under the public interest provisions of the Complaints Act, the Ombudsman has made available all material requested by the Coroner, including the special investigation report.

AFP complaints outreach program

The office's Law Enforcement Team maintains a range of relationships designed to make the AFP complaint system accessible to those who want to exercise their right to complain. The aim is to generate public awareness of the Ombudsman's role in managing AFP complaints and to build confidence in the complaint system. Additional funding was allocated in the 2004–05 Budget for outreach activities, and an enhanced strategy has been developed for AFP complaints.

'The Ombudsman's outreach program … can obtain information about the community's interaction with the AFP.'

The organisations identified for law enforcement outreach activities are those with a large number of clients from disadvantaged and minority sectors such as the multicultural, indigenous Australian, youth, gay and lesbian sectors, and those with mental health problems. The outreach program will also serve to provide a forum where the Ombudsman's office can obtain information about the community's interaction with the AFP.

During the year, we continued to liaise with government agencies that are closely associated with the AFP, including CrimTrac, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, the ACT Legal Aid Office, the ACT Victims of Crime Coordinator, and the Attorney-General's Department. The perspective of these offices provides a valuable insight into current and potential issues involving police practices.

Staff members conducted an outreach visit to the Jervis Bay area, and conducted training sessions for students of criminal law at the Australian National University. We also presented seminars to AFP members about our role and the rights of people to make complaints.

Australian Protective Service

The APS provides a guarding service for Australian Government facilities and airports. The APS also provides a first-response capability at airports in terror alert incidents, and in 2003–04 was part of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. APS officers have a reasonably high level of interaction with the public.

The APS was granted additional powers by Parliament in January 2004. Using these new powers, an APS officer can require a person suspected of a particular offence to furnish their name and address, stop and search a suspect and their vehicle, use reasonable force to effect a search, conduct frisk searches, and seize items from suspects. No complaints were received during the reporting period about alleged abuse of these new powers.

As noted in last year's annual report, the APS became an operational division of the AFP on 1 July 2002; under that arrangement, complaints about the APS are handled under the Ombudsman Act. Seven complaints were received in 2003–04, and a further five complaints were carried forward from the previous year. Of these 12 complaints, ten were closed during 2003–04.

In May 2004, Parliament approved full integration of the APS and AFP by approving amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. From 1 July 2004, APS members will be subject to the Complaints Act and come under the same professional conduct and complaint regime as AFP members. Significantly, complaints against the APS and its members will have to be notified to the Ombudsman's office, as is currently the case with AFP complaints. Our experience shows that the requirement to disclose all complaints is an excellent accountability mechanism.

'The Ombudsman is confident that the APS's capacity to manage its complaint handling will improve …'

Several of the complaints about the APS in 2003–04 were outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, because they related to employment matters. In all other complaints, we considered that the APS internal complaint-handling mechanisms adequately responded to each complainant's concerns. While we expressed concern about a delay in providing a response to a complainant in one case, the Ombudsman is confident that the APS's capacity to manage its complaint handling will improve as the organisation gathers relevant experience and skills.

Members of the Law Enforcement Team spent two days with APS senior managers from around Australia at a workshop in Canberra in June 2004, discussing the implications of subjecting the APS to the Ombudsman's oversight. We look forward to working more closely with APS management and staff in the 2004–05.

Australian Crime Commission

Complaints about the ACC are managed under the Ombudsman Act. Only six complaints were received in 2003–04, largely reflecting the fact that the ACC's role does not bring its staff in close contact with members of the public. A further two complaints were carried over from the previous year. During the year, seven complaints were finalised, and one complaint was carried over.

Of the seven matters finalised during the year, the Ombudsman decided not to investigate four as they were of a trivial nature or were based on an improbable scenario. A fifth complaint related to the ACC's failure to return seized property in a timely manner, which the ACC quickly remedied.

Ombudsman staff made inquiries about a sixth complaint that was of a more serious nature. It was found that the complainants' concerns had been adequately raised and reviewed before a court on previous occasions. In such a case, notwithstanding that a person may be disappointed and continue to debate an outcome in the judicial process, there is no further role for the Ombudsman's office.

A second serious allegation was forwarded to the ACC for investigation under the Ombudsman's supervision. After significant investigative effort, the complainant's allegation could not be substantiated due to lack of conclusive evidence.

While the Ombudsman Act does not confer power to compel an agency to disclose to the Ombudsman all complaints received by the agency, it is pleasing to note that we receive regular briefings on all matters being investigated by the ACC that relate to the integrity of its staff. This provides the Ombudsman with the opportunity to judge whether or not to use own motion powers for certain matters. Considering the sensitive nature of the work of the ACC, we have appreciated the ACC's approach to the disclosure of integrity matters.

'… regular briefings … provide the Ombudsman with the opportunity to judge whether or not to use own motion powers.'

Own motion investigation

In June 2004, the Ombudsman conducted an own motion investigation into a review of the operational and corporate implications for the ACC of alleged corrupt activity by two former secondees.

The scope of the Ombudsman's investigation was limited. It focused on assessing whether the review, which was conducted by independent consultants, met the terms of reference provided by the ACC and whether the recommendations reflected the operational implications identified in the review report. The Ombudsman did not conduct a separate investigation of the allegations of corrupt activity.

The Ombudsman concluded that the review conducted for the ACC had been undertaken in a proper manner and made appropriate recommendations. The Ombudsman's report made two further recommendations to the ACC about developing effective management and compliance systems to address deficiencies identified in the consultants' review report. The Ombudsman also recommended that the ACC implement the package of recommendations made in the consultants' report. The ACC has accepted all the recommendations of both reports.

The Ombudsman will conduct a further own motion investigation during 2004–05 to monitor the ACC's progress in implementing the recommendations.

Monitoring activities

The Ombudsman's office undertakes a variety of monitoring roles in addition to its complaint investigation function. Monitoring activities encompass the inspection of records relating to telecommunications interceptions and controlled operations undertaken by the AFP and the ACC. The Surveillance Devices Bill 2004, which was still under consideration by Parliament at the end of June 2004, would broaden the Ombudsman's inspection role to include records relating to surveillance devices.

In the 2003–04 Budget, the Australian Government provided additional ongoing resources for the Ombudsman's monitoring and inspection function. We are acutely aware that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is part of a larger community of bodies that oversight law enforcement practices, both within Australia and internationally.

The office's Law Enforcement Team is actively developing a network of contacts with other Ombudsman offices to share knowledge and ideas. For example, we hope to achieve a nationally coordinated and consistent approach between Ombudsman offices that will make our collective activities more efficient and enhance our advice to government.

We have commenced an extensive review of our inspection methodologies both for telecommunication interceptions and for controlled operations. This review will be finalised in 2004–05, and will be followed by consultation with the AFP and the ACC.

These reviews have identified a small anomaly in the reporting requirements placed on the office. We currently report on the inspections we conduct in a financial year, rather than on the records generated in that period. This situation has the effect that the Ombudsman's reports to the Attorney-General cannot reasonably include interception records generated in the last months of the financial year. We intend to progress this issue in 2004–05.

'The Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the AFP and the ACC …'

Telecommunication interceptions

Under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (TI Act), the Ombudsman is required to inspect the records of the AFP and the ACC to ensure that telephone interception activities are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

During the year, a total of four inspections of telecommunications intercept records were conducted. Two inspections were conducted at the AFP and two inspections at the ACC. A report was made to the Attorney-General on the results of those inspections. The reports concluded that the agencies are generally complying with the requirements of the TI Act. However, there are also opportunities to improve the administrative and compliance systems for both agencies, especially in developing guidelines and training to assist staff in administering telecommunications interception warrants.

These inspections continue to form an important element of the work of the Ombudsman's Law Enforcement Team. The inspection methodology used and resource levels required are continually reviewed to ensure that the accountability role of the office continues to be performed adequately.

In conjunction with the AFP, we gave presentations to AFP investigators in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, about the importance of accountability. These occasions gave investigators an opportunity to discuss issues of concern.

While in Perth, we had discussions with the ACC, a representative of the Western Australian Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission. Representatives of the ACC also travelled to Canberra to meet with us to discuss new procedures and training.

We met with representatives from the Security Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department to discuss matters relating to the TI Act.

Controlled operations

Controlled operations can be broadly described as covert operations carried out by law enforcement officers for the purpose of obtaining evidence that may lead to the prosecution of a person for a serious offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act). These operations may also result in the law enforcement officers engaging in conduct that, unless authorised under a controlled operations certificate, would constitute an offence.

The Ombudsman has an oversight role in ensuring that controlled operations are approved and conducted in accordance with Part 1AB of the Crimes Act, and that information in formal reports is comprehensive and accurate. Relatively low numbers of controlled operations are undertaken in the federal law enforcement arena.

'The Ombudsman has an oversight role in ensuring that controlled operations are approved and conducted in accordance with the Crimes Act …'

During the year, a total of four inspections of controlled operations records were conducted. Two audits were conducted at the AFP and two audits at the ACC. These inspections resulted in reports to both agencies and the Minister for Justice and Customs, a briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC, and the presentation of a report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in January 2004. The reports concluded that the agencies are generally complying with the requirements of the Crimes Act and providing comprehensive and accurate information in formal reports.

Following the Ombudsman's briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC in October 2003, an own motion investigation was conducted under the Ombudsman Act into controlled operations carried out by the ACC under State and/or Territory legislation. The investigation is due to be completed in 2004–05.