Becoming (Jihad) jacked off by our courts

If the courts want to go further and feel the need to hammer home the point, perhaps the government could make a small investment and purchase bells for all the judges which they could furiously ring after they have used their frostiest of tones to denounce the wicked police tactics. Certainly, there is no need to become obsessive about the issue and imperil community safety by releasing known criminals into the community to further underline their disapproval of police misconduct.

The “disciplinary principle”, which contends that we need to discourage police from adopting inappropriate practices in a bid to nab crooks, is also thought to support the rejection of tainted confessions.

This supposed justification is also flawed. The law of evidence is a wholly ineffective vehicle for disciplining police. Like most people, police are far more motivated by self-interest than a sense of civic duty. Sure, some police have a personal interest in the outcome of their cases, but they are far more interested in ensuring they keep their jobs.

If a tainted confession is excluded from evidence, the main victim is the community not the police officer who is responsible for the investigative transgression. The police officer will have suffered no tangible detriment whatsoever.

The best means of ensuring that police follow the Investigative Code of Conduct Manual and therefore do not seek to secure tainted confessions is to put in place structures that ensure that all allegations of police impropriety (even those made in court) are thoroughly investigated and dealt with.

The prohibition against collective punishment and harm is one of the bedrocks upon which moral thought is erected. The community should no longer be punished by having its safety jeopardised for the sins of police officers. It is the police alone that must wear the consequences of their investigative transgressions.

At the same time, as a community we should not compound the harm constituted by police transgressions by allowing the guilty to walk free.

In a properly functioning legal system, the correct outcome of the Thomas case would have been for Thomas’ conviction to be upheld, while the AFP officers who did not distance themselves from the inducements made by Pakistani officials were disciplined - and perhaps demoted.

While Jihad Jack is enjoying his new found freedom, the rest of the community is becoming jack of the rights of suspects constantly trumping the common good. It is time the government passed legislation redressing this imbalance. The law has been a mockery for long enough.