CON OP

Question 1

Explain the findings of Ridgeway V R [1995]?

Answer 1

Ridgeway V R [1995]

• Drug matter
• AFP and Royal Thai Police operation,
• Source used to import Heroin into Australia under direction of AFP
• Heroin then delivered to Ridgeway.
• Ridgeway arrested and charged with possession a prohibited import contrary.
• RIDGEWAY appealed and it was deemed that possession was excluded because it was obtained pursuant to the illegal action of the AFP in facilitating the import.

Question 2

What are the object of the LECO

Answer 2

1. Protected undercover officers against criminal prosecution for offences committed in the course of a controlled operation.
2. Put in place a tight accountability measure for approving and over sighting controlled operations.
3. Remove any doubt as to the legal status of evidence obtained in a controlled op.
4. Implement a recommendation of the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service

Question 3

When is a CON OP necessary ?

Answer 3

• Unlawful
• Corrupt conduct
• A crime

Question 4

Who can authorise a con op?

Answer 4

Who can authorise a controlled operation

• Chief Supintendents (state crime command)
• Assistant Commissioner for each region

Question 5

How are con op applications made?

Answer 5

• Formal signed written application

- Urgent verbally in person

Question 6

An authority to conduct a controlled operation may not be granted unless the chief executive officer is satisfied as to the following matters:

Section 6

Answer 6

Section 6 LECO
- Reasonable grounds to suspect
- The target is committing the criminal activity
- Describe the nature and extent
Criminal activity
Controlled Operations activities
- Controlled Operations will be capable of being accounted for in detail

Question 7

Matters not to be authorised?

Answer 7

Section 7(1)
- The commission of a sexual offence against any person.
- Participation by persons lacking appropriate skills.
- Using civilian participants unless impracticable to use a law enforcement participant.
- Inducing another to engage in crime or corruption they could not reasonably be expected to have engage in. R V BUTCHER.
• UCO engaged Butcher pursuant to a con op.
• Butcher had limited antecedents and sold drugs to support addiction.
• Supplied UCO ever increasing amounts establishing an offence of ongoing supply offence.
• On fourth occasions, supplied half a pound of amphetamines for $7000.
• Butcher appealed on sentence.
o Argued that UCO talked him into supplying larger amounts than he otherwise would have.
o Because of this, the trial judge over emphasised.
• Conducts likely to seriously endanger the health and safety of that or any other participant, or any other person, or result in serious loss or damage to property.

Question 8

What were the findings of R V SWAFFIELD?

Answer 8

1984 - Fire Rockhampton
Swaffield was a suspect at the time. Swaffield cautioned offered not evidence.
Drug op conducted a few years later. During op Swaffield made admissions to the UC about the fire years earlier
DEEMED INADMISSIBLE - Involuntary admissions breached his right to silence. UC acted as agent for police

Question 9

What were the findings of Pavic V R?

Answer 9

1984 - Melbourne

• Missing person
• Pavic Suspect - arrested and fail to interview
• Cautioned and released
• Body of MP located.
• Source approached police and said Pavic spoke to source and mad admissions.

DEEMED ADMISSIBLE
ORD Conversation
Volunteered
Deemed not and interview

Question 10

What is PLEO in relation to a CON OP?

Answer 10

A Principle Law Enforcement Officer is officer identified as the principle informant. Ultimately responsible for what happens /within the operation.

Question 11

Who can authorise a UC operation?

Answer 11

Commander of UC Branch

Question 12

Can a SLO be used with a source job?

Answer 12

NO NO NO

Question 13

What is the duration of a Con Op?

Answer 13

Runs for a statutory period of six months

Question 14

What must be included in con op application under Section 5 2A.

Answer 14

Section 5(2A) LECO

• a plan of the proposed operation,
• the nature of the criminal activity or corrupt conduct,
• the nature of the controlled activity in respect of which an authority is sought,
• a statement of whether or not the proposed operation, or any other controlled operation with respect to the same criminal activity or corrupt conduct, has been the subject of an earlier application for an authority or variation of an authority and, if so, whether or not the authority was given or variation granted,
• the names and ranks of the law enforcement officers nominated to be the principal law enforcement officer and the secondary law enforcement officer for the proposed operation.