AUSTRALIAN Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has provoked criticism from lawyers, legal experts and civil libertarians after he said police should continue "testing the courts" despite the recent collapse of a number of high-profile terrorism prosecutions.
Mr Keelty made the claim during a speech on Friday to an audience of police officers at the announcement of a new counter-terrorism team, based in Sydney, consisting of AFP and NSW police.
He later attempted to deny he used these words, which were digitally recorded.
"Both in the UK and in Australia we are testing the courts. We make no apologies for that, I think it’s part of the work police do … and will help prevent a (terrorist) attack here," he said.
"We’re not going to get perfect results each and every time. People need to understand it (the new anti-terror legislation) is a very different operating environment."
In light of the failed prosecutions of Mohamed Haneef and Izhar Ul-Haque, his claims provoked fresh criticism from those who argue the police have no authority to test the boundaries of what is legal in order to pursue a conviction.
In a previously unreported letter to Mr Keelty last month, the Law Council of Australia questioned the actions of his officers in the arrest and prosecution of Dr Haneef in relation to a car-bomb attack on Scotland’s Glasgow airport in June.
The case against Dr Haneef collapsed in July amid revelations incorrect evidence against him had been tendered in court.
"It has become clear that our anti-terror laws, while draconian in certain respects, are only part of the problem. The source of the danger is not only what those laws say but what people, including AFP officers, think they say," Law Council president Ross Ray QC said.
Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie said he feared Mr Keelty’s statement revealed an "ideological mindset" that governed the AFP’s conduct during a series of highly politicised prosecutions.
"The role of the police is to enforce the law, not test the law. Does this mean the AFP are taking on borderline cases when they should be taking on the main cases?" Mr Bernie said.
In November, the attempted prosecution of Mr Ul-Haque on unrelated terrorism charges collapsed after a judge found AFP officers had interviewed him without either cautioning the Sydney medical student or telling his lawyer about the interrogation.
An AFP officer was present during a separate coerced interview of Mr Ul-Haque at his home by ASIO officers, which judge Michael Adams said amounted to "false imprisonment and kidnapping".
Mr Keelty said public perception of his force had not been affected by the fallout from these prosecutions and instead criticised the role the media played in highlighting the failures in each.
"The burden of responsibility for protecting the community lies not on the shoulders of journalists, nor does it lie on the shoulders of commentators. It lies on the shoulders of frontline police (and) frontline intelligence agents," he said.
Media Alliance Federal Secretary Christopher Warren said this was "typical of his (Mr Keelty’s) failure to understand" the media.
"The media’s role is to pull up state institutions, whether it’s police, governments, prosecutors or courts, because if we don’t no one else does," he said.