CRIMES ACT 1914 - PART 1AB

CONTROLLED OPERATIONS

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 15T

1996-1997

 


© Commonwealth of Australia 1997


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTROLLED OPERATIONS
Introduction
Comment
Accountability
Legislation
Law Enforcement Observations on the Legislation
Section 15T
Judicial Consideration of Part 1AB
 
APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORISING A CONTROLLED OPERATION
Certificates Issued by Senior Officers of the AFP
Certificates Issued by the Chairperson and Members of the NCA

 

INDEX OF CERTIFICATES
ER1/96 ER9/97 ER24/97 CR1/97 SR3/96
ER2/96 ER10/97 ER25/97 NR1/96 SR4/96
ER5/96 ER11/97 ER26/97 NR2/96 SR5/96
ER6/96 ER12/97 ER27/97 NR3/96 SR1/97
ER7/96 ER13/97 ER28/97 NR4/96 SR2/97
ER8/96 ER14/97 ER29/97 NR5/96 SR3/97
ER9/96 ER15/97 WR1/96 NR7/96 SR4/97
ER1/97 ER16/97 WR2/96 NR1/97 SNCA1/96
ER2/97 ER17/97 WR3/96 NR2/97 SNCA2/96
ER3/97 ER18/97 WR4/96 NR3/97 SNCA3/96
ER4/97 ER19/97 WR1/97 NR4/97 SNCA1/97
ER5/97 ER20/97 WR2/97 NR5/97 SNCA2/97
ER6/97 ER21/97 WR3/97 NR6/97 SNCA3/97
ER7/97 ER22/97 CR1/96A SR1/96 SNCA4/97
ER8/97 ER23/97 CR1/96B SR2/96 PNCA1/97

 


CONTROLLED OPERATIONS

Introduction

‘Controlled Operation’ is an expression used to describe a covert operation by a law enforcement agency carried out for the purpose of gathering evidence that may lead to the identification and prosecution of a person for a criminal offence. Such operations are most commonly employed by Commonwealth law enforcement agencies in connection with investigations surrounding the importation of narcotic goods.

Importation and trafficking in narcotic goods is a clandestine criminal activity frequently carried out in a highly organised manner with subterfuge, deceit and elaborate concealment methods. It is a major priority of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies to detect and apprehend the individuals and networks involved.

Prior to 1995, Commonwealth law enforcement agencies relied upon the common law and Ministerial arrangements to engage in controlled operations. The most recent Ministerial agreement was made between the then Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and the then Special Minister of State and came into effect on 3 June 1987. The agreement addresses the relationship between the Australian Customs Service (ACS), the National Crime Authority (NCA) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with respect to narcotic drug law enforcement.

On 19 April 1995 the High Court handed down its decision in the matter of Ridgeway v The Queen. By a majority of 6-1 the court decided that where law enforcement officials use a controlled operation during an investigation into narcotics trafficking and, as a result, commit an element of an offence with which a defendant is charged, a court should normally refuse to admit the evidence of that element against the defendant.

The central issue in ridgeway was the admissibility of evidence. The High Court held that, because of the involvement of law enforcement officers in the importation of heroin, the evidence obtained thereby was tainted and should be excluded from the trial. Some members of the court indicated that if law enforcement officers are to engage in such conduct in the course of investigations, a legislative scheme authorising it would need to be established.

As a result, Part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914 was enacted. It commenced operation on 8 July 1996. Part 1AB provides for the conduct of controlled operations by Australian law enforcement agencies.

Under section 15H of the Act:

A controlled operation is an operation that:

By exempting law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain conduct related to importation, exportation or possession of narcotic goods, Part 1AB ensures that evidence resulting from such conduct is not excluded from evidence under the principles enunciated in Ridgeway by reason of that conduct alone.

 

Comment

Controlled operations are an internationally accepted investigatory technique. Australia is a signatory to the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. That Convention provides inter alia, if a country’s legislation allows, for the appropriate use of controlled deliveries at the international level with a view to identifying persons involved in organised trafficking.

Part 1AB was enacted to permit the admissibility of evidence where law enforcement officers participate in the act of importing narcotic goods. Experience has shown however, that a range of other law enforcement activity not necessarily related to the act of importation or direct participation of law enforcement officers has also required the issue of certificates. Attention has also been drawn to the operational difficulties of the legislation particularly in relation to the pre-requisites for the authorisation of a controlled operation. Those difficulties will be monitored.

Certificates have been issued under four general categories of law enforcement activity:

A

This scenario, which most closely mirrors the Ridgeway situation, has resulted in only a small number of certificates being issued:

  • The narcotic goods which are the subject of the controlled operation are imported into Australia with the participation of law enforcement officers. The certificate authorising the controlled operation is issued in order to permit the law enforcement officers to engage in conduct which would constitute a narcotic goods offence without there being a certificate in force, and to obtain evidence and of an offence against section 233B of the Customs Act.

B

The following scenario frequently occurs where the narcotic goods are detected at the Customs barrier, either at an airport, a seaport, or an international postal exchange. These types of operation comprise the largest category:

  • The narcotic goods which are the subject of the controlled operation are imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and seized by the ACS on entry. The certificate is issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act, by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from ACS control to the intended recipient, which in the absence of a certificate may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.

C

The following scenario covers situations where information is received concerning the possible importation of narcotic goods and the criminal activity is monitored without any law enforcement participation:

  • The narcotic goods which are the subject of the controlled operation are imported into Australia without the participation of law enforcement. However, the law enforcement officers have prior knowledge that the importation might occur and the certificate is issued to permit law enforcement officers to observe and allow the narcotic goods to pass through ACS control unimpeded in order to gain evidence of the commission of an offence against section 233B of the Customs Act.

One of the factors influencing the decision to issue certificates in operations which do not specifically fall in to the strict Ridgeway category is whether officers of the ACS are permitted by the Customs Act to allow goods to pass through the barrier, where there is a suspicion of drugs, for the purpose of a controlled operation. In the circumstances, legal advice has been that a certificate should be issued under Part 1AB of the Crimes Act.

D

The following scenario covered a single case where, in an undercover capacity, the AFP attempted to acquire a quantity of drugs in Australia in order to obtain evidence and intelligence of the commission of an offence:

  • The narcotic goods, the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the participation of law enforcement. However, the certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to attempt to acquire a quantity of drugs in order to obtain evidence and intelligence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act, which in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.

 

Accountability

Part 1AB of the Crimes Act sets out a full and open system of accountability in terms of the application and approval processes for certificates and the requirement for issued certificates to be tendered in evidence in prosecutions for subsequent offences.

The Act requires that the responsible Minister, the Attorney-General, is kept informed of all applications for a certificate conferring authority to conduct a controlled operation. The Attorney-General is also informed of the outcome of a controlled operation at the conclusion of the operation. In turn, the Attorney-General is required to table a report to each House of the Parliament providing details of the applications made under the provisions of the Act and the outcome of the operations authorised.

 

Legislation

The principal elements of Part 1AB are as follows:

By exempting law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain conduct related to importation, exportation or possession of narcotic goods, Part 1AB ensures that evidence resulting form such conduct is not excluded from evidence under the principles enunciated in Ridgeway by reason of that conduct alone. The transitional provisions of the Part directly reverse the discretionary principles laid down in Ridgeway in the case of certain importations carried out under conditions agreed by the AFP and ACS under the 1987 Ministerial Agreement.

 

Law Enforcement Observations on the Legislation

The AFP, NCA and DPP have drawn attention to some operational difficulties encountered in applying the legislation. These will be monitored and, if appropriate, a proposal for amendment of the legislation may be brought forward in due course.

 

Section 15T

Section 15T requires the Minister to lay a report about controlled operations before each House of Parliament. The report must include the following information in respect of each application for a certificate authorising a controlled operation made in the period from the commencement of the legislation (8 July 1996) until 30 June 1997:

In addition, the annual report must include the information given to the Minister pursuant to section 15S of the Act, which requires the authorising officer to give the Minister a report within 3 months after the certificate ceases to be in force. The report to the Minister under section 15S must state whether or not the controlled operation was carried out. If the controlled operation was carried out, the report to the Minister under section 15S must also:

It should be noted that the annual reporting requirement is subject to provisos in subsection 15T(3) and (4). Subsection 15T(3) prohibits the annual report from mentioning anything about the named person that has not already been published. Subsection 15T(4) requires the Minister, based on the advice of the AFP Commissioner or the NCA Chairperson, to exclude from the annual report information that may endanger the safety of a person or prejudice an investigation. The omitted information must then be included in the first annual report tabled after these risks no longer exist.

Some details have been omitted from the schedules in this annual report pursuant to subsections 15T(3) and (4)

The schedules are arranged in the following order:

 

Judicial Consideration of Part 1AB

Nicholas

Division 3 of Part 1AB is the subject of a constitutional challenge in the matter of Nicholas before the High Court. A full report of the matter will be included in the next annual report if a decision has been handed down before that time.

 


APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORISING A CONTROLLED OPERATION


Certificates Issued by Senior Officers of the AFP

ER1/96
Date of Application: 16 July 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Customs officers intercepted a package which was found to contain 820 grams of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 17 July 1996, Australian Federal Police members conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted) which was accepted by a person who then met with two other people. The three were interviewed. Alfred Raymond Teagle was arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901. The matter has been completed.

The narcotic goods have been destroyed.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER2/96
Date of Application: 16 August 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS intercepted a package in Sydney which was found to contain 532.9 grams of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the consignment contained a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the person may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 16 August 1996, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted) which was accepted by two people who conveyed the package to a second address.

Later that day, AFP members entered the premises and arrested Dili Puloka and Hofaka Lomu. Both persons have been charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER5/96
Date of Application: 20 August 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
2.0065 kilograms of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 27 August 1996, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic, the remainder of which had been substituted). Two people were arrested and charged with possess and attempt to possess a prohibited import under section 233B(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER6/96
Date of Application: 11 August 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS intercepted a consignment consisting of three crates which had been forwarded to Australia from Thailand. The crates contained three marble vases. An examination of the vases located a total of 13.993 kilograms of heroin concealed in the bases of the marble vases. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the person may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • enquiries conducted by police had established that the consignee lived at the nominated address; and
  • if not apprehended, he would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 12 August 1996, Manh Tien Nguyen took delivery of the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic, the remainder of which had been substituted). He was followed to a Sydney address where a search warrant was executed on the premises. As a result of the controlled operation Manh Tien Nguyen was arrested and charged with possess prohibited import under section 233B(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER7/96
Date of Application: 15 November 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS inspected a container which was found to contain 5 tonnes of cannabis. The container had been consigned to Australia from Cambodia. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the container contained a commercial quantity of cannabis under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life or for such a period as the Court thinks appropriate;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under theCustoms Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

The controlled operation did not proceed. The certificate expired on 14 December 1997.

The bulk of the narcotic goods has been destroyed. A sample is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER8/96
Date of Application: 18 November 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
259.2 grams (990 tablets) of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 19 November 1996, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). Later that day a search warrant was executed on the premises. The package was recovered unopened.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER9/96
Date of Application: 31 December 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods which are the subject of this controlled operation were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Custom Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901, by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from ACS control to the intended recipient, which in the absence of a certificate may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

On 31 December 1996 ACS members examined an unaccompanied suitcase and located 3.93 kilograms of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the consignment involved a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or for such period as the Court thinks appropriate;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation
    (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the opportunity to identify the principals in Australia who have financed and organised the importation; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 31 December 1996 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the narcotic goods to the recipients premises. A short time Later Victor Hugo Jimenez was arrested leaving the premises. He has been charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER1/97
Date of Application: 4 February 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined a box which was found to contain 1.7 kilograms of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the box contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation
    (ie physical and electronic surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 11 February 1997, Australian Federal Police (AFP) members conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic, the remainder of which had been substituted). The package was delivered and accepted by the consignee, Hery Budiman. Budiman took the package to another address and commenced to retrieve the MDMA. Police executed a search warrant and retrieved the drugs. Budiman was arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER2/97
Date of Application: 15 February 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members ACS searched the luggage of an incoming passenger which was found to contain approximately 4 kilograms of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the luggage contained a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person/s for such an offence;
  • the person may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 17 February 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). As a result of the controlled operation police executed a search warrant on premises occupied by the recipient and recovered the consignment. The recipient was arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

Exclusion of Information The name of the person arrested as a result of this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing the persons name may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER3/97
Date of Application: 25 February 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined the contents of a container which was found to contain a quantity of cannabis. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the container contained a commercial quantity of cannabis under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life or for such a period as the Court thinks appropriate;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation
    (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation: The controlled operation did not proceed within the period of the certificate which expired on 25 March 1997.
Exclusion of information: The precise detail surrounding this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing those details may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER4/97
Date of Application: 13 March 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
475.2 grams of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA, under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not apprehended, he would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation takes place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 14 March 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). As a result of the controlled operation an offender was arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

Exclusion of Information The name of the person arrested as a result of this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing the offenders name may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER5/97
Date of Application: 14 March 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain 333.7 grams of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the serious nature of the matter under investigation and the nature of concealment;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 17 March 1997, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic, the remainder of which had been substituted). Yan Lin Mao and Chandarajay Ngem were arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER6/97
Date of Application: 21 March 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
335.1 grams of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • the similarities with a previous importation, controlled operation ER5/97;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under theCustoms Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 24 March 1997, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation and delivered the package (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). Sovan Pen and Kim Mai were arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER7/97
Date of Application: 25 March 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined the contents of a container which was found to contain a quantity of cannabis. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the container contained a commercial quantity of cannabis under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life or for such a period as the Court thinks appropriate;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a second certificate authorising the controlled operation. The previous certificate, ER3/97, expired on 25 March 1997.

Conduct of Operation: The controlled operation did not proceed within the period of the certificate which expired on 23 April 1997.
Exclusion of Information: The precise detail surrounding this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing those details may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER8/97
Date of Application: 21 March 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
297.5 grams of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 24 March 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) attempted to conduct a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). The occupant of the premises would not accept delivery of the consignment.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER9/97
Date of Application: 2 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS intercepted a package which was found to contain
7.4799 kilograms of 3, 4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, commonly known as MDEA. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of MDEA, under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the person/s may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 3 April 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). As a result Amanda Tze Wen Lo and Fouad El-Hassan were arrested and charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER10/97
Date of Application: 3 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined the contents of a number of mail articles which were found to contain 737.7 grams of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the articles contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA, under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 6 April 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted).

A search warrant was executed on the premises and the controlled sample was recovered. No charges have been laid.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER11/97
Date of Application: 4 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS searched the luggage of an incoming passenger and
4.954 kilograms of tablets concealed inside the suitcases which were found to be 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the luggage contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA, under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the nature of the concealment;
  • the person may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 4 April 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation. Due to the nature of the concealment the narcotic goods, consisting of a quantity of MDMA, were not substituted.

The controlled operation resulted in the arrest of Brett Wayne Power who has been charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER12/97
Date of Application: 10 December 1996
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS searched the luggage of an incoming passenger and found it to contain 9 kilograms of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the luggage contained a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the person may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation: The controlled operation did not proceed. The operation was terminated on 11 December 1996. A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER13/97
Date of Application: 7 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods which are the subject of the controlled operation were imported into Australia with the participation of law enforcement officers. The certificate authorising the controlled operation was issued to permit the law enforcement officers to engage in conduct which would constitute a narcotic offence without there being a certificate in force, to obtain evidence of an offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.
Reason for Decision:

Information was received concerning the importation of 8 kilograms of cocaine. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the consignment involved a trafficable quantity of cocaine under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • information received from the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (USDEA) regarding a similar package which was alleged to have contained 30-35 kilograms of cocaine;
  • investigations conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) which supported the information provided by the USDEA;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 7 April 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). The package was recovered unopened. To date no person/s have been charged.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER14/97
Date of Application: 14 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined the contents of two packages and found them to contain 396 tablets of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA or Ecstasy. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of MDMA under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 13 May 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted). The controlled sample was recovered un-opened.

Subsequent enquiries conducted by the AFP has resulted in the arrest of an offender who has been charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

Exclusion of Information The name of the person arrested as a result of this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing the offenders name may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER15/97
Date of Application: 28 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods which are the subject of this controlled operation were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Custom Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901, by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from ACS control to the intended recipient, which in the absence of a certificate may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined a container and located 78 kilograms of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the container contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the sophisticated nature of the concealment and the large quantity of heroin imported clearly suggested that a highly organised group were behind the financing, organisation and intended distribution of the narcotics involved;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 2 May 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a controlled operation (which consisted of a representative sample of the narcotic goods, the remainder of which had been substituted).

The operation resulted in the arrest of Vo Thi Do, Ung Heeng,
Tung Chew Hoong and Leung Yiu Man who have been charged with offences under section 233B of the Customs Act 1901.

A sample of the narcotic goods is in secure storage at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. The bulk is currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER16/97
Date of Application: 24 April 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods which are the subject of this controlled operation were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Custom Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901, by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from ACS control to the intended recipient, which in the absence of a certificate may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of ACS examined the contents of a container which was found to contain a quantity of cannabis. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the container contained a commercial quantity of cannabis under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life or for such a period as the Court thinks appropriate;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation
    (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a third certificate authorising the controlled operation. Previous certificates, ER3/97 and ER7/97 expired before a controlled operation could be conducted.

Conduct of Operation: The controlled operation did not proceed within the period of the certificate which expired on 24 May 1997.
Exclusion of Information: The precise detail surrounding this controlled operation has been excluded pursuant to section 15T(4)(b) on the grounds that publishing those details may prejudice an ongoing AFP investigation.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER17/97
Date of Application: 2 May 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS examined the contents of a package which was found to contain 682 grams of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation: The controlled operation did not proceed. The certificate expired on 16 May 1997. The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with Australian Federal Police Drugs Policy and Procedure guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER18/97
Date of Application: 2 May 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS examined the contents of a package which was found to contain 686.8 grams of heroin. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of heroin under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation
    (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledge; and
  • if not identified and apprehended, the person/s would be likely to commit an offence under the Customs Act 1901 whether or not the operation took place.

In view of the above, the authorising officer considered the criminal activities were sufficiently serious to warrant the issue of a certificate authorising the controlled operation.

Conduct of Operation:

On 8 May 1997 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) delivered the package to the intended address. A short time later police executed a search warrant on the premises and recovered the package unopened.

The narcotic goods are currently in secure storage in accordance with AFP Drugs Policy and Procedures guidelines.

[ table of contents ]


 

ER19/97
Date of Application: 5 May 1997
Decision Taken: To authorise a controlled operation.
Nature of Controlled Operation: The narcotic goods, which are the subject of the controlled operation, were imported into Australia without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement officers and were seized by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on entry. The certificate was issued to permit law enforcement officers to conduct investigations essential to the gaining of evidence of the commission of a narcotic goods offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 by allowing the movement of the narcotic goods from Customs control to the intended recipient which, in the absence of a certificate, may have constituted a narcotic goods offence.
Reason for Decision:

Members of the ACS examined the contents of a package which was found to contain 4 kilograms of cannabis. The authorising officer based his decision to issue the certificate on the following information:

  • the package contained a trafficable quantity of cannabis under the Customs Act 1901, the illegal importation of which attracts a maximum penalty of $4,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both;
  • when utilised in conjunction with traditional methods of investigation (ie surveillance, search warrant), conducting a controlled operation would make it much easier to obtain evidence that could lead to the prosecution of the person for such an offence;
  • the suspect may be involved in a major drug operation;
  • conducting a controlled operation would provide police with an opportunity to identify the person/s involved in this importation;
  • prima facie the offence of importation had been committed;
  • based on previous experience it is likely that, if confronted, the person/s involved in this importation would deny all knowledg