Undercover op a fizzer for Fisheries
The Department of Fisheries has conducted its first covert operation under contentious laws giving it the power to take assumed identities and commit crimes while undercover to crack poaching rings.
In a hotly contested move, the Government made Fisheries a “law enforcement agency” for the purposes of the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Act enacted in March 2013.
A compliance report for 2013-14 tabled in Parliament last week revealed the first operation, launched on November 4, 2013, did not go well.
The probe into suspected selling of fish taken unlawfully under the Fish Resources Management Act yielded no arrests or charges and “notwithstanding attempts ... made by Fisheries officers, no controlled conduct was undertaken”.
The laws were introduced in all States to allow authorities “seamless cross-border investigation” of serious and organised crime without having to obtain authorisation in each jurisdiction.
Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan, the Opposition, the parliamentary committee overseeing the Corruption and Crime Commission and a separate review committee that scrutinised the laws in 2012 all questioned why Fisheries needed the powers.
The department’s serious offences unit was already empowered to do covert surveillance operations, of which there were seven between 2007 and 2011. Four yielded charges.
But in a hearing before the committee in December 2011, SOU officer in charge Carl Grossetti argued Fisheries needed the powers, especially assumed identities, because organised crime gangs were diversifying into illegal fishing.
He sketched a scenario in which an undercover Fisheries officer may need to “swap a rock lobster for a handgun”, which would otherwise be unlawful.
The review committee found the department had “not provided persuasive evidence of organised crime in the industry” and noted no other jurisdiction had given its fisheries department access to the powers.
The argument was overruled by Police Minister Liza Harvey, who told Parliament there would be more checks and balances on covert operations would be subject to more checks and balances if brought under the umbrella of the Act.
