"International lawyers have raised serious concerns about Australia's new counter-terrorism laws, questioning whether the legislation breaches international law.
The Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights has delivered a preliminary report on its review of anti-terror laws passed by federal parliament in December.
They have raised particular concerns about the powers of intelligence agencies under the Australian laws and urged the government to consider whether the measures violated international treaties.
"We invite reflection on whether those counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices comply with international law," their report said. "We express serious concern with regard to the ASIO powers to detain non-suspects, to limit the right to legal representation and the possible negative impact on confidentiality of communications between lawyer and client.
"The obligation of the affected person to render information also has negative impacts on the privilege against self-incrimination."
So reports CCH on its web site - only available to subscribers.
It is interesting to observe that this very last week saw the Law Council of Australia, in a submission to a Senate Inquiry, query the width and "dangers" inherent in the proposed new telecommunications laws. Those laws would allow almost unfettered eaves-dropping on users of communications systems.
The Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights has delivered a preliminary report on its review of anti-terror laws passed by federal parliament in December.
They have raised particular concerns about the powers of intelligence agencies under the Australian laws and urged the government to consider whether the measures violated international treaties.
"We invite reflection on whether those counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices comply with international law," their report said. "We express serious concern with regard to the ASIO powers to detain non-suspects, to limit the right to legal representation and the possible negative impact on confidentiality of communications between lawyer and client.
"The obligation of the affected person to render information also has negative impacts on the privilege against self-incrimination."
So reports CCH on its web site - only available to subscribers.
It is interesting to observe that this very last week saw the Law Council of Australia, in a submission to a Senate Inquiry, query the width and "dangers" inherent in the proposed new telecommunications laws. Those laws would allow almost unfettered eaves-dropping on users of communications systems.
Comments