The Daily Telegraph currently has a subscriber only article regarding John Ibrahim's lawyers being refused access to information regarding the accusations against him.
As it is subscriber only, I will not be posting it here - but it does spark an interesting question.
How far should we trust our police to act in secrecy?
For context:
John Ibrahim is a "Kings Cross Identity", or as most people think of him, a(n accused) criminal.
Last year, the police raided his house and despite finding $65000 of inexplicable cash, they found no guns.
They promptly hit him with a "Firearms Prohibition Order", which makes sense, you want to block suspected criminals from accessing guns right?
Except as a non licenced individual, John could never legally own firearms anyway and as a suspected criminal, he could never get a licence.
So what does a "Firearms Prohibition Order" ACTUALLY DO?
Well it gives the police the right to search a named individual and the location they are in, without a warrant, at any time, for the duration of the order.
|
|
