RESPONSE BY AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL
POLICE
REGARDING COMPLAINT ABOUT
MALCOLM TURNBULL FEDERAL MP
REGARDING COMPLAINT ABOUT
MALCOLM TURNBULL FEDERAL MP
SYDNEY-LAW PUBLISHER'S REPLY TO AFP RESPONSE:
|
(1)
|
A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if: | ||
|
(a)
|
the official:
|
||
|
(i)
|
exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or | ||
|
(ii)
|
engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or | ||
|
(iii)
|
uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and | ||
|
(b)
|
the official does so with the intention of:
|
||
|
(i)
|
dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or | ||
|
(ii)
|
dishonestly causing a detriment to another person. | ||
| Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. | |||
TEXT COPY OF PUBLISHER'S RESPONSE
FOR GOOGLE KEY WORDS / PHRASES
Co-ordinator,
Operations Monitoring Centre,
Sydney Office,
Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Dear Mr. Sykes,
RE : COMPLAINT AGAINST MALCOLM TURNBULL FEDERAL MP
AS PER PUBLISHED AT WWW.SYDNEY-LAW.COM
Thank you for your letter of response dated 13 November 2007 regarding the above matter which I received on 20 November 2007.
During the course of the last few weeks I have requested from various individuals, legal personnel and
government agencies, comment on why the conduct of Minister Turnbull would not be in contravention of the law that is within the meaning of section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995.
None have been able to offer any of the requested comment whatsoever.
Further, during that time I have been unable to find any decision of any Court in Australia that has found a meaning of the section 142.2 to be narrower that its common sense meaning, as any ordinary person would read it.
Together with the nil comment mentioned above, your letter does not indicate why the matter does not
constitute an offence given the conduct complained of and the simple common sense meaning of the section.
It is unfortunate in Australia, which I believe to not be in Australia's interests, that it is fact or perceived fact that the AFP have often conducted unlawful operations that have been clearly exposed to be based on non-existent evidence. Matters that come to mind are the recent sagas of Dr. Haneef, Izhar ul-Haque and Tony Tran who was wrongfully detained for 5 years, together with a number of people who have been illegally deported or detained pursuant to baseless allegations that they were illegally in Australia.
It appears obvious to most normal thinking people, that this disgusting conduct is the result of political
interference, however when it comes to a politician so obviously and potentially in contravention of the law, they become a protected species that warrants no investigation or not even the slightest explanation.
May I remind you that the quality of freedom, democracy and human rights so often touted by way of political statements that Australia is the best country in the world, is directly related to the levels of independence and integrity of its law enforcement and justice systems. In my view the AFP law enforcement system in Australia has been and is, severely compromised and my respect for it continues to diminish accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Gordon Craven - 22 Nov 07