(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

From the SMH: according to the police, this week's raids and arrests would have gone ahead in any case without Howard's public announcement and rushed to change the law. (Confusingly, AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty said the new law was necessary for the raids, but his deputy said they weren't.) Some of the people arrested have been, or will be, charged with planning a terrorist act - possibly this is where the new law comes in, but I'm not clear on this.

Warned by Howard's announcement, the alleged terrorists immediately met to prepare for the raids; they may have had time to destroy evidence. The Age reported: "The police assigned to conduct the raids were livid that they had lost the element of surprise, substantially increasing the risks involved." The PM is very lucky that, despite a shoot-out with one suspect, no police were killed (let alone any of the suspects).

My question now is: can Howard be charged with compromising a security or police operation?

Comments

[whochick.livejournal.com]

With my limited legal knowledge, I'd say Howard's culpability is dependent upon whether he was advised by the head of the operation (or someone more senior) that it was alright to make the statement. It is possible that Howard was given the go-ahead by one person planning the raid, despite the fact that other people in charge might have (quite reasonably) felt that it would give their targets time to prepare and destroy evidence.

With the police's history of miscommunication, I'd be interested to discover who advised Howard that the statement could be made. Given that he's so cagey about public statements, I doubt he'd do something like that without getting the thumbs-up from somewhere ...

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

I don't think he can be charged. He *is* executive head of the government, after all; I think while what he did might possibly have been irresponsible and damaging, it's not illegal.