Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Premier Daniel Andrews has backed the detention of a teen terror suspect without charge, saying police need the legislative framework and power to be able to ensure public safety.
But legal advocacy and civil liberties groups have criticised the sweeping anti-terror powers, and claimed they are "unnecessary" and "objectionable".
It is the first time an interim preventive detention order (PDO) under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003 has been granted in Victoria, which allows the 18-year-old Hampton Park man to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.
The detained man was one of five arrested in a series of counter-terrorism raids across Melbourne's south-east on Saturday.
Mr Andrews said the use of the interim order was indicative of the significance of the terror threat.
The pre-dawn raids were part of a joint operation between Victoria Police and Australian Federal Police.
It is alleged they uncovered a terrorist plot to attack police officers at Anzac Day commemorations in Melbourne this week.
Five men, all aged 18 and 19, were arrested in Saturday's pre-dawn raids in Narre Warren, Hampton Park, Hallam and Eumemmerring.
Hallam man Sevdet Besim, 18, has been charged with conspiring to commit a terrorist act.
Three other men, all from Narre Warren, were released pending further investigations. Police have not named the 18-year-old man currently in custody. For legal reasons, Fairfax Media cannot reveal the identity of the detained man.
A preventive detention order is granted in order to preserve evidence relating to a recent or imminent terrorist act, or to prevent an imminent terrorist act from occurring.
The use of the interim PDO has been criticised by legal advocacy groups, who argue it circumvents the traditional legal process.
"It's essentially throwing the Magna Carta out the window," said Greg Barns, barrister and spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.
"This shows a complete contempt of the Australian Parliament for fundamental human rights which have been in existence for over 800 years."
Barrister and vice president of civil liberty group Liberty Victoria Michael Stanton said if there was sufficient evidence, a person should be charged and face the usual court process.
"Our system operates on the basis that it's for the courts and the courts alone to make the decision of whether someone's liberty should be taken away."
Speaking on Sunday, Mr Andrews acknowledged interim orders were a point of contention but said Victorian Police needed the appropriate powers to keep the community safe.
"We have a very difficult balance to strike in making sure that our police and others have the things they need to keep us safe," he said.
The orders form part of a swath of anti-terrorism powers granted to governments a decade ago but, according to terror expert Professor Greg Barton, they were not used until last year.
As part of Operation Appleby, police successfully obtained the orders for three men following September's counter-terrorism raids conducted in Sydney and Brisbane. All three were later released without charge.
Professor Barton, from Monash University's Global Terrorism Research Centre, said the orders had "very limited utility" and were "not particularly useful" in police investigations.
"All you can do with an interim order is keep them from getting in the way of the current investigation."
Professor Barton believes it is unlikely the man will be charged.
"If they had reasonable grounds for charging him they would have," he said. "I think [the order] is to try and stop him from muddying the waters."
The order may have been granted to prevent the man from communicating with a particular peer network, Professor Barton said.
But detaining someone without charge risks community backlash, which can negatively affect the relationship police have with community and social groups they rely on for information or assistance
"It risks relations [police] have been building up with community groups," Professor Barton said.
Mr Barns said he was also concerned over the use of PDOs because they placed severe restrictions on the detained person obtaining legal advice and contacting family members.
With Richard Willingham
