Media restrictions urged by Australia police chief would limit accountability Commentary
Media restrictions urged by Australia police chief would limit accountability
Edited by:

Max Jeganathan [spokesperson, Civil Liberties Australia]: "Civil Liberties Australia unequivocally and unconditionally rejects Mr Keelty's call for media restrictions on coverage relating to all and any operations by the Australian Federal Police Force. Clearly, the arms of law enforcement and the judicial process need to operate freely and impartially without incumberance. However, the cruciality of a free press can not be undermined for a false purpose. There is absolutely no reason why law enforcement agencies and the judiciary can not operate responsibly and effectively while the media reports on their operations responsibly and effectively.

At a time when procedural fairness, natural justice and due process are been stretched in the name of national security, it is incumbent upon a free media to hold law enforcement and the judiciary accountable. The false case brought by the Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions against Dr Mohammad Haneef would have gone unscrutinised and unreported if Mr Keelty's wishes were granted. This is just one example of why media restrictions are, in a philosophical, theoretical and practical sense, unpalatable in any pluralist society.

It is not too much to ask for an unencumbered media to operate along side a competant law enforcement agency. In fact, anything less should be considered unacceptable."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.