Recently in criminal law Category
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down their judgment on the Haneef appeal this morning -- Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Haneef [2007] FCAFC 203 -- and dismissed the government's appeal with costs.
Quoting from the Court-provided summary of the judgment:
Quoting from the Court-provided summary of the judgment:
The Migration Act specifies various circumstances under which a person does not pass the character test. They include that a person has or has had "an association with someone else, or with a group or organisation, whom the Minister reasonably suspects has been or is involved in criminal conduct".
The Minister suspected that Dr Haneef did not pass the character test because of his "association" with the Ahmeds. [Haneef's second cousins]
Justice Spender considered that the Minister had misinterpreted the character test and had applied a test that was too wide and could encompass links that could not, in his Honour's view, conceivably have had any bearing on the visa holder's character.
On the Minister's appeal to the Full Court the central issue was, again, the scope of "association" and whether the Minister had applied the incorrect test.
It was common ground on the appeal that there had to be some limits on the scope of "association", but there was disagreement between the parties as to what those limits were. The Minister argued for a wide definition, relying upon an earlier decision of a single judge of the Federal Court, and Dr Haneef's counsel argued for a narrower one.
Applying the principles of the common law concerning the interpretation of statutes in circumstances where the rights of individuals may be adversely affected, the Full Court has agreed with Justice Spender that a narrower interpretation of "association" than that applied by the Minister should be taken to reflect the intention of the Parliament when it enacted the character test.
In a unanimous judgment, the Full Court has concluded that the "association" to which s 501(6)(b) of the Migration Act refers is one involving some sympathy with, or support for, or involvement in, the criminal conduct of the person, group or organisation with whom the visa holder is said to have associated. The association must be such as to have some bearing upon the person's character.
The Daily Telegraph reports that the UN Committee against Torture have weighed in on the Taser debate, saying that 'The use of these weapons [i.e. Tasers] causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture'
Nic Suzor has been giving Taser incidents a lot of coverage on his blog of late, there's not a lot that I can usefully add to what he's written at this point in time.
Nic Suzor has been giving Taser incidents a lot of coverage on his blog of late, there's not a lot that I can usefully add to what he's written at this point in time.
The Sydney Morning Herald and other outlets are reporting that the Sydney man who made a 'bootleg' recording of the Simpsons movie with his mobile phone, uploaded it to the Internet, and was subsequently charged with two criminal offences for so doing, has pled guilty and been fined $1000.
It's a bit of a joke really -- not because his punishment was so low, but because it shows up all the claims that the government was making about the copyright infringement notice scheme as a low-cost, low-hassle alternative to the 'traditional' methods of charging people and bringing them before a court.
This guy was fined $1000. If, instead of being charged with two copyright offences, he was given two infringement notices, he would have had to pay 12 penalty units for each one, with a penalty unit being worth $110, for a total of $2640.
That's right -- this villainous scourge of the motion picture industry, whose Crimes Against Hollywood were so great so as to cause the Attorney-General to weigh in, saying how good Australia's copyright laws were, and how seriously we take these issues, went to court the 'traditional' way and paid less than half of what he would have paid if he'd been given infringement notices.
This really gives the lie to the government claims that the fines associated with infringement notices would be less than if people took the matter to court.
It won't be long before MIPI, AFACT, and their ilk start bleating about Australia being a 'banana republic'. Again.
It's a bit of a joke really -- not because his punishment was so low, but because it shows up all the claims that the government was making about the copyright infringement notice scheme as a low-cost, low-hassle alternative to the 'traditional' methods of charging people and bringing them before a court.
This guy was fined $1000. If, instead of being charged with two copyright offences, he was given two infringement notices, he would have had to pay 12 penalty units for each one, with a penalty unit being worth $110, for a total of $2640.
That's right -- this villainous scourge of the motion picture industry, whose Crimes Against Hollywood were so great so as to cause the Attorney-General to weigh in, saying how good Australia's copyright laws were, and how seriously we take these issues, went to court the 'traditional' way and paid less than half of what he would have paid if he'd been given infringement notices.
This really gives the lie to the government claims that the fines associated with infringement notices would be less than if people took the matter to court.
It won't be long before MIPI, AFACT, and their ilk start bleating about Australia being a 'banana republic'. Again.
Many news outlets are reporting that a 'terrorist' prosecution in NSW has fallen on its arse because the court ruled evidence obtained in certain interrogations to be inadmissible, because of 'misconduct' by ASIO and the AFP. But it's only when you read the judgment -- R v Al-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251 -- that you find out exactly how egregious the conduct of the ASIO officers was.
I encourage you to read the judgment in full. The high points are that three ASIO officers:
The list goes on. Adams J criticised (at [52]-[54]) the evidence of one of the ASIO officers involved as evasive and dishonest. His Honour found that:
The gallant men and women saving us all from terrorism just can't get a break these days. First the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of 'Jihad' Jack Thomas, because overseas officials and a mysterious American (whom he believed to be a CIA agent) had threatened him with being shipped off to Afghanistan to be tortured by having his testicles twisted, or threatening to send people to Australia to rape his wife.
And then Mohamed Haneef gets off the hook because they had no evidence against him. Not that that little fact stopped them from telling the courts otherwise. And you never know -- maybe if they'd kept him locked up without trial for a few years, he might have confessed anyhow and saved the government the hassle of that whole 'burden of proof' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' stuff. It worked for David Hicks!
And now this. Adams J even had the gall to quote (at [60]) the judgment of that pinko commie Kirby J in Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48: ([137]-[139])
When will these pesky judges realise that the rules have changed, and that all pre-11/09/2001 authorities on the rights of individuals against the government are no longer good law? We're at war, people! Sacrifices need to be made. Civil liberties are an outdated concept, and a tyrannical surveillance state is preferable to a risk of being killed in a terrorist incident which is statistically about the same as the risk of being killed by lightning.
Maybe once Peter Faris QC has his way and the use of torture is legalised, they'll be able to get confessions from all these innocent people and make them stick. Then we can all feel safer.
(For the avoidance of doubt, the above several paragraphs are, of course, sarcasm)
I hope that Ul-Haque sues the government, and the agents who kidnapped him. I also hope that ASIO and the AFP once and for all get the message that coercing confessions is morally and legally wrong and the courts will slap them down where they do it.
But I doubt they will.
I encourage you to read the judgment in full. The high points are that three ASIO officers:
- Had no warrant for the arrest of the accused, or any lawful authority to detain him;
- Confronted the accused (a 21 year old) in the car park of a train station at night;
- Told him:
- that he 'was in serious trouble' and that 'you need to talk to us and need to talk to us now';
- that they 'were doing a very serious terrorism related investigation' and that 'we require your full cooperation';
- that they were taking him 'somewhere to have a private discussion';
- Then took the accused by car to a public park (as opposed to, say, a police station!);
- Told him:
- 'you're in a substantial amount of trouble. We are conducting a very serious terrorist investigation at the moment and that investigation has lead us to you. We have many means of investigation and we hold considerable information about you. What we now require from you is your full co-operation with ASIO in resolving the matter by being honest with us';
- 'we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. Either you should co-operate with us or there'll be consequences for you, and it's in your own benefit that you keep talking to us'
The list goes on. Adams J criticised (at [52]-[54]) the evidence of one of the ASIO officers involved as evasive and dishonest. His Honour found that:
- The ASIO officers deliberately used language that suggested they had lawful authority to detain the accused and to require him to answer their questions; (at [34])
- The accused 'was intentionally given to understand that he was under an obligation to accompany the ASIO officers and answer their questions'; (at [27])
- The ASIO officers in fact detained the accused, although they knew they had no authority to do so; (at [35])
- The accused 'believed he was under arrest and that if he did not comply with what the officers asked him that they would either use physical violence or take him to a more sinister place for interrogation or otherwise do something else to his family or him'; (at [35])
- The ASIO officers committed the common-law misdemenour (or the tort) of false imprisonment, and the common-law crime of kidnapping, as well as trespass (for other conduct not described above); (at [57]-[60] and [62])
- The ASIO officers knew that their conduct was unlawful and 'were perfectly well aware that they were not entitled to detain [the accused]' and that '[t]heir conduct was grossly improper and constituted an unjustified and unlawful interference with the personal liberty of the accused'; (at [61])
- 'The impropriety of B15 and B16 was intentional and calculated to produce the very admissions that were made. It was grave. There is no suggestion that the officers acted contrary to ASIO protocols and good reason for thinking that they did not.' (at [105])
The gallant men and women saving us all from terrorism just can't get a break these days. First the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of 'Jihad' Jack Thomas, because overseas officials and a mysterious American (whom he believed to be a CIA agent) had threatened him with being shipped off to Afghanistan to be tortured by having his testicles twisted, or threatening to send people to Australia to rape his wife.
And then Mohamed Haneef gets off the hook because they had no evidence against him. Not that that little fact stopped them from telling the courts otherwise. And you never know -- maybe if they'd kept him locked up without trial for a few years, he might have confessed anyhow and saved the government the hassle of that whole 'burden of proof' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' stuff. It worked for David Hicks!
And now this. Adams J even had the gall to quote (at [60]) the judgment of that pinko commie Kirby J in Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48: ([137]-[139])
[The tort of false imprisonment] reflects the fundamental interest of the common law in protecting individual liberty and freedom of movement. As Fullagar J observed in Trobridge v Hardy:The mere interference with the plaintiff's person and liberty constituted prima facie a grave infringement of the most elementary and important of all common law rights.This concern is especially significant in respect of a claim for wrongful imprisonment made against members or officers of the Executive Government. It is a fundamental principle of Australia's constitutional law that the executive may not interfere with the liberty of an individual without valid authorisation. In Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane, Deane J explained:The common law of Australia knows no lettre de cachet or executive warrant pursuant to which either citizen or alien can be deprived of his freedom by mere administrative decision or action. Any officer of the Commonwealth Executive who, without judicial warrant, purports to authorize or enforce the detention in custody of another person is acting lawfully only to the extent that his conduct is justified by clear statutory mandate. ... It cannot be too strongly stressed that these basic matters are not the stuff of empty rhetoric. They are the very fabric of the freedom under the law which is the prima facie right of every citizen and alien in this land. They represent a bulwark against tyranny.
When will these pesky judges realise that the rules have changed, and that all pre-11/09/2001 authorities on the rights of individuals against the government are no longer good law? We're at war, people! Sacrifices need to be made. Civil liberties are an outdated concept, and a tyrannical surveillance state is preferable to a risk of being killed in a terrorist incident which is statistically about the same as the risk of being killed by lightning.
Maybe once Peter Faris QC has his way and the use of torture is legalised, they'll be able to get confessions from all these innocent people and make them stick. Then we can all feel safer.
(For the avoidance of doubt, the above several paragraphs are, of course, sarcasm)
I hope that Ul-Haque sues the government, and the agents who kidnapped him. I also hope that ASIO and the AFP once and for all get the message that coercing confessions is morally and legally wrong and the courts will slap them down where they do it.
But I doubt they will.
The farce that is the Keystone Cops Australian Federal Police's handling of the Haneef matter just won't go away, and it gets worse every time I look at it. AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, who was previously vocal in defending the AFP's prosecution of Haneef, and equally vocal in attacking Haneef's lawyers for pointing out the gaping flaws in the AFP's case against him, has now said that he knew the case was weak.
Tony Morris QC has called for Keelty to be sacked, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. From the news.com.au article:
The fact that Keelty hasn't been sacked over the Haneef debacle is symptomatic of the reprehensible and irresponsible government we've come to enjoy under Howard's watch. Thankfully the smart money is on that watch ending in about a month's time. Hopefully Rudd will give Keelty the arse, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Tony Morris QC has called for Keelty to be sacked, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. From the news.com.au article:
"At the time, he was very vocal in the press, castigating Haneef's lawyers for disclosing the weaknesses in the prosecution case," Mr Morris said. "Now he admits that he was conscious of those weaknesses all along, and stood by and did nothing when an inaccurate version of the facts was inadvertently presented to the court.Keelty should have had the balls to quit when it was revealed that the prosecution had given completely false information to the court for the purpose of justifying Haneef's continued detention. I don't know what Keelty was thinking when he made his most recent admissions -- maybe he thinks it's better to be thought to be a compliant stooge of the commonwealth's 'war against terror', than to be thought ignorant or incompetent.
"On his own admission, as the chief law enforcement officer for the commonwealth, he was willing to allow a miscarriage of justice to proceed without taking any step to interfere - and then attacked Haneef's lawyers for their efforts to prevent that miscarriage."
The fact that Keelty hasn't been sacked over the Haneef debacle is symptomatic of the reprehensible and irresponsible government we've come to enjoy under Howard's watch. Thankfully the smart money is on that watch ending in about a month's time. Hopefully Rudd will give Keelty the arse, but I wouldn't put money on it.
EFA has published the submission that we made to the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department's RFC on a draft of the Copyright Infringement Notice Scheme Guidelines. Kim Weatherall made an excellent submission, which covers the big picture issues very well - so EFA kept ours mainly on the EFA-type issues.
Yesterday morning, on what will (probably) be the last sitting day before the federal election, Coonan, out of the blue, introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related
Internet Content) Bill 2007 into the Senate.
The Bill, as it currently stands, will give the commissioner of thekeystone cops Australian Federal Police, or senior members of the AFP (to whom the commissioner's powers can be delegated) the power to ban Australians from accessing Internet content, whether it is in Australia or overseas.
The commissioner (or delegate), if they have "reason to believe" that Internet content is "crime or terrorism related content", may give a notice to that effect to the ACMA, who are required to notify all ISPs under the registered code for general-purpose Internet censorship, or otherwise give all ISPs a standard access-prevention notice which requires them to "take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content" - i.e. block it.
The short version is that the Federal police will be able to ban access to Internet material by decree, based merely on what they "believe" about the material.
The important part of the definition of "crime or terrorism related content" is that:
Despite the continued references to "terrorism", this Bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Its provisions apply to any offence against a law of the Commonwealth - even something relatively insignificant such as copyright infringement. The government are simply playing the terrorism card to deter criticism of the Bill.
This is the type of legislation that you would expect to see in a police state. The Bill contains no mechanisms for review or appeal of a decision to give one of these notices. It puts the police in the position of judge, jury, and executioner of Internet content, and it will almost certainly be used as a tool of political censorship.
EFA have issued a media release about the Bill. The Bill is typical of the contempt with which the coalition treats the Internet and the civil liberties of all Australians. Remember this on election day.
The Bill, as it currently stands, will give the commissioner of the
The commissioner (or delegate), if they have "reason to believe" that Internet content is "crime or terrorism related content", may give a notice to that effect to the ACMA, who are required to notify all ISPs under the registered code for general-purpose Internet censorship, or otherwise give all ISPs a standard access-prevention notice which requires them to "take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content" - i.e. block it.
The short version is that the Federal police will be able to ban access to Internet material by decree, based merely on what they "believe" about the material.
The important part of the definition of "crime or terrorism related content" is that:
- the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) encourages, incites or induces the commission of a Commonwealth offence; or
- the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) is to facilitate the commission of a Commonwealth offence; or
- the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth offence.
Despite the continued references to "terrorism", this Bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Its provisions apply to any offence against a law of the Commonwealth - even something relatively insignificant such as copyright infringement. The government are simply playing the terrorism card to deter criticism of the Bill.
This is the type of legislation that you would expect to see in a police state. The Bill contains no mechanisms for review or appeal of a decision to give one of these notices. It puts the police in the position of judge, jury, and executioner of Internet content, and it will almost certainly be used as a tool of political censorship.
EFA have issued a media release about the Bill. The Bill is typical of the contempt with which the coalition treats the Internet and the civil liberties of all Australians. Remember this on election day.
Justice Spender of the Federal Court of Australia has today given his judgment in Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1273. In short, Spender J held that although the Minister applied the "association" test from Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Chan [2001] FCA 1552, (which held that even an innocent association was sufficient to satisfy the legislative test), that that was not the correct test and that Chan was wrongly decided.
Interestingly, Spender J observed that had the Minister applied the correct test, it would have been open to him to cancel Haneef's visa on the basis of the evidence before him at the time. That is presumably no longer the case, the charges against Haneef having been dropped and the prosecution's case against him generally descending into a farce that the Queensland Premier accurately compared to the Keystone Cops.
The Commonwealth, predictably, announced within hours of the judgment that they would appeal. I'm glad to see that the Commonwealth has adopted a responsible attitude to this litigation, and took the time to thoroughly read the judgment, analyse its implications, and take legal advice on the prospects of an appeal, before they publicly committed to a course of action. I am, of course, being sarcastic. It would be irresponsible to waste public funds on an appeal to the Full Court simply because the government didn't like the first-instance decision, or because it made them look silly.
Interestingly, Spender J observed that had the Minister applied the correct test, it would have been open to him to cancel Haneef's visa on the basis of the evidence before him at the time. That is presumably no longer the case, the charges against Haneef having been dropped and the prosecution's case against him generally descending into a farce that the Queensland Premier accurately compared to the Keystone Cops.
The Commonwealth, predictably, announced within hours of the judgment that they would appeal. I'm glad to see that the Commonwealth has adopted a responsible attitude to this litigation, and took the time to thoroughly read the judgment, analyse its implications, and take legal advice on the prospects of an appeal, before they publicly committed to a course of action. I am, of course, being sarcastic. It would be irresponsible to waste public funds on an appeal to the Full Court simply because the government didn't like the first-instance decision, or because it made them look silly.
Continue reading Haneef visa decision quashed; Govt to appeal.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has issued a press release (not yet available online) as follows:
ACTION ON ALLEGED FILM PIRACY OF THE SIMPSONS
An investigation in relation to alleged piracy of The Simpsons Movie, demonstrates the Government is serious about protecting creative works Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
Mr Ruddock said the government recently made significant changes to copyright laws introducing a range of measures including the ability to track and recover proceeds of serious copyright crimes, and strengthening evidential presumptions in copyright proceedings.
"Australia has been at the forefront of copyright law reform to ensure that law enforcement and industry have the necessary tools to tackle piracy at all levels", Mr Ruddock said.
"To support the legislative changes, the Government has provided the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth DPP with $12.4 million over two years, for investigating and prosecuting serious and complex intellectual property crime, and to pursue proceeds of such crimes."
"Film piracy doesn't only hurt Hollywood, it hurts Australia's film makers, businesses, workers and consumers," Mr Ruddock said.
A search warrant was executed in Sydney yesterday by the AFP following the receipt of information from the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). As a result a 21 year old man will appear in a Sydney court in October.
If any member of the public has any information related to copyright piracy, they should contact the Australian Federal Police or their local State police.
Note: AFACT has a nationwide 24 hours a day hotline that enables the reporting of film copyright theft: 1800 251 996 and an email contact facility through http://www.moviepiracy.org.au
I take issue with a number of claims made by Mr Ruddock. Setting aside the changes in relation to evidential presumptions (I think it safe to assume that 20th Century Fox would have little difficulty establishing that they own the copyright which subsists in the cinematograph film in question) and the tracing of proceeds (I think it safe to assume that there are none in this case), let's compare the "new" criminal offences with the "old" criminal offences and see whether Mr Ruddock's "significant changes" would make any difference to how this case plays out.
Continue reading Ruddock on Simpsons bootlegging and recent criminal copyright changes.
News.com.au reports that a Sydney man is facing criminal charges because he allegedly made a "boot-leg" recording of the Simpsons movie using a mobile phone, and then uploaded it to "a US global streaming website" - whatever that means. I'm guessing they're referring to Bittorrent or some other P2P technology; "youtube" having entered the popular lexicon, if the bootleg had been put on youtube, I imagine they would have just said so.
The Australian Federal Police are said to have confirmed that they searched the man's house "in relation to allegations of criminal breaches of intellectual property law." The article reports that computer equipment was siezed and that the man faces "charges related to distributing and infringing copyright material and possessing a device for doing so."
This article raises a number of interesting issues...
How did AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") and/or the police identify this individual as the alleged uploader? Even if they had his IP address, it could have been anyone in his household or with access to his computer that allegedly uploaded the bootleg copy.
Why are the "infringement notice" provisions that were introduced last year not being used in this case? It could be that the "guidelines" for enforcement of those provisions have not yet been made (or, at least, published), but I'm guessing that AFACT and the relevant copyright holders want to throw the proverbial book at this individual. An infringement notice would only allow for a fine of $1320 and forfeiture of the hardware involved in the infringement. By using the indictable offence provisions, the maximum penalty is 5 years jail, or a fine of $60,500, or both.
Given that AFACT appear to be scapegoating this individual as being responsible for all online "piracy" of the Simpsons movie, I imagine that they will be pushing for serious jail time. It will be interesting to see if there is a repeat of the events in the "mp3wmaland" case, a criminal prosecution of three university students in Sydney in 2003. In that case, counsel representing the copyright holders sought to make submissions on sentencing, and to recover the costs of their privately-conducted investigation from the defendants - and were soundly rebuffed by the court. The defendants in that case received significant -- but suspended -- jail terms, leading the then-head of MIPI ("Music Industry Piracy Investigations") Michael Speck to describe the judgment as "banana republic stuff".
It is also interesting that (if the news.com.au article is correct), the individual under investigation faces an additional charge for possessing a "device". The untested device provisions in s 132AL of the Copyright Act 1968 were controversial when introduced, and are farcically over-broad. I find it bizarre that possession of a mobile phone with intent to use it to infringe copyright should be a criminal offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment. It's not as though it was equipment designed specifically for producing infringing copies. Section 132AL will no doubt feel my wrath in a future posting.
I'll be watching this case with interest.
[Update: The Sydney Morning Herald now has a story on this issue, and AFACT have a press release [.doc file] online.]
The Australian Federal Police are said to have confirmed that they searched the man's house "in relation to allegations of criminal breaches of intellectual property law." The article reports that computer equipment was siezed and that the man faces "charges related to distributing and infringing copyright material and possessing a device for doing so."
This article raises a number of interesting issues...
How did AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") and/or the police identify this individual as the alleged uploader? Even if they had his IP address, it could have been anyone in his household or with access to his computer that allegedly uploaded the bootleg copy.
Why are the "infringement notice" provisions that were introduced last year not being used in this case? It could be that the "guidelines" for enforcement of those provisions have not yet been made (or, at least, published), but I'm guessing that AFACT and the relevant copyright holders want to throw the proverbial book at this individual. An infringement notice would only allow for a fine of $1320 and forfeiture of the hardware involved in the infringement. By using the indictable offence provisions, the maximum penalty is 5 years jail, or a fine of $60,500, or both.
Given that AFACT appear to be scapegoating this individual as being responsible for all online "piracy" of the Simpsons movie, I imagine that they will be pushing for serious jail time. It will be interesting to see if there is a repeat of the events in the "mp3wmaland" case, a criminal prosecution of three university students in Sydney in 2003. In that case, counsel representing the copyright holders sought to make submissions on sentencing, and to recover the costs of their privately-conducted investigation from the defendants - and were soundly rebuffed by the court. The defendants in that case received significant -- but suspended -- jail terms, leading the then-head of MIPI ("Music Industry Piracy Investigations") Michael Speck to describe the judgment as "banana republic stuff".
It is also interesting that (if the news.com.au article is correct), the individual under investigation faces an additional charge for possessing a "device". The untested device provisions in s 132AL of the Copyright Act 1968 were controversial when introduced, and are farcically over-broad. I find it bizarre that possession of a mobile phone with intent to use it to infringe copyright should be a criminal offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment. It's not as though it was equipment designed specifically for producing infringing copies. Section 132AL will no doubt feel my wrath in a future posting.
I'll be watching this case with interest.
[Update: The Sydney Morning Herald now has a story on this issue, and AFACT have a press release [.doc file] online.]
