AFP scolded over opposition to ankle bracelets in bail applications

A surprising argument about electronic monitoring used by the AFP to deny people bail has been lambasted in court.

A New South Wales Supreme Court judge rebuked a federal police officer’s argument three men charged during the AN0M raids should stay behind bars.

Exclusive: The Australian Federal Police (AFP) will no longer argue against the use of electronic bracelets in bail applications.

It comes after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) was criticised by a judge for raising the imposition releasing three men on drugs charges with electronic monitoring would potentially have on federal police.

Sources within the AFP said the argument that accused people requiring electronic monitoring created extra work for police won’t be used as argument to deny people bail.

It follows the rebuke in the New South Wales Supreme Court where a federal police officer argued the three men charged during the AN0M raids should stay behind bars.

New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Bianca De Marchi

Federal Agent Luke Wilson raised concerns about the pressure the Australian Federal Police would be under if the accused were granted e-bail – and the “efficacy” of the electronic ankle bracelets.

“Statements such as that of Federal Agent Wilson, in my experience, are commonly tendered when the issue of electronic monitoring is raised. This is surprising,” Justice Hament Dhanji said.

He pointed to an earlier decision that said the “costs incurred by the AFP in monitoring a person on bail is simply part of the obligations that an investigative body assumes when it causes charges to be laid in this State”.

Justice Dhanji – in dismissing the Crown’s appeal – said he hoped a similar argument would not be heard in court again.

“It is not open to the director to ignore statements of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the basis that it is not convenient to the director’s case. I would expect serious consideration would be given to the tendering of any such statements in the future, insofar as they deal with the issue of the imposition electronic monitoring poses to the AFP,” he said.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Hament Dhanji. Picture: Supplied

But Justice Dhanji said the AFP’s view on the “efficacy” of e-bail was relevant.

“Federal Agent Wilson points out a number of instances where an electronic monitor has been removed and an attempt has been made to flee, or in one case where the device has malfunctioned and reported false positives.”

At least one person successfully fled the state and others came close to escaping, while in another instance an alert was sent to an AFP staff member who was on leave and it was missed, Justice Dhanji said.

Allied Universal, a US company that is contracted to fit and monitor electronic bracelets, told the court “procedures have been updated” to ensure that wasn’t repeated.

The AFP declined to say what specific “efficacy” concerns they had, saying the devices were “fitted and maintained by private companies, who are then required to notify the AFP of potential breaches of bail conditions”.

The spokesman said monitoring the recently released detainees fitted with electronic bracelets was the responsibility of the Australian Border Force [ABF].

“The AFP is responsible for the investigation of alleged breaches reported to the AFP by ABF,” the spokesman said.

However, the AFP was responsible for electronic monitoring of high risk terrorism offenders and responding to breaches.

Originally published as AFP scolded over opposition to ankle bracelets in bail applications