NSW courts have refused less than 2 per cent of police applications for secret recordings, reigniting claims judges are "rubber stamping" privacy intrusion, new data shows.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Only six out of 363 applications for surveillance device warrants were rejected in the first half of 2014. This was an increase from no refusals, out of 878 applications, in the prior 12 months.
"The very low rate of refusals suggests either that applications for surveillance device warrants by NSW police are consistently of an almost perfect standard, or that the process of approval lacks rigour," said shadow NSW attorney-general Paul Lynch.
"In light of evidence recently in the Legislative Council, this is of great concern. There needs to be a proper review of this process."
An upper house inquiry into Ombudsman Bruce Barbour's handling of the police bugging police scandal found at least one application for a listening device warrant didn't fulfill the grounds to justify recording the private conversations of 46 people.
The Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, David Levine, told the inquiry that as a judge he never refused a warrant, and instead "looked to see if there is someone named in this warrant who is named as 'M.Mouse ' or 'D.Duck' ''.
The inquiry urged the Baird government to review the system for granting warrants, and consider establishing an independent office to test the veracity of surveillance device applications by police.
Queensland has a Public Interest Monitor who can appear in court to test the validity of police applications.
The Ombudsman's latest report on the use of the Surveillance Devices Act found police were systemically failing to destroy recordings that weren't needed for criminal investigations, in breach of the Act. Instead, they were being archived.
The Deputy Commissioner of Specialist Operations, Catherine Burn, replied to the Ombudsman that a training day would be held for the Covert Applications Unit.
But Mr Lynch said: "It's critical that sensitive information and documents are dealt with by police only as the law requires. It's not acceptable to have systemic problems with police retaining documents they shouldn't."
A district court judge threw out evidence secretly recorded by police in 2013, because he said its use in a "run of the mill" case contravened the intent of the 2007 law, which was to combat terrorism.
NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton said the Surveillance Devices Act was under review.
"The Department of Justice continues to consult with stakeholders on whether the Act's policy objectives remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives," she said.
"The review will consider the relevant case law."
