Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 - NSW ...

In our chapter on Cabramatta, we discuss the types of security measures found on identified drug premises in that LAC.
In the Appendix to this report, we have documented the security measures police recorded on identified drug premises in other regions.
5.5.2.3. CCTV surveillance cameras and police scanners
As well as evidence of external or internal constructions, and other security devices, section 11(2)(b) of the Drug Premises Act includes
any means or device for the purpose of giving alarm. 282 Two types of devices that were found on identified drug premises that could be
used for this purpose were police radio scanners and surveillance cameras.
Surveillance cameras were more commonly noted in reference to identified drug premises in LACs in the Greater Metropolitan Region
(excluding Cabramatta), and in the Southern Region, than in other LACs. Surveillance cameras were not noted as a feature of identified
drug premises in Cabramatta.
These cameras were usually linked to television monitors in the lounge rooms or bedrooms of premises. The presence of surveillance
cameras was a factor in the police assessment that these premises were drug premises. For example, one event narrative relating to the
use of the Act in the Southern Region lists various items that were found on the premises, including drug paraphernalia, syringes and a
mixing agent, and:
… surveillance monitor linked to the external camera which was on at the time, a bright fluorescent light which was situated out the
front of the house. Due to these items being located together with the police intelligence obtained, the premises was declared a
“drug premises”. 283
Surveillance cameras were most commonly found on identified drug premises in the Greater Metropolitan Region. In relation to one
premises in this region, police noted that intelligence indicated that the occupants of the unit had:
… gone to great lengths to fortify the unit from any police raids by reinforcing the doors and [defendant’s name] had placed
surveillance monitoring systems in various parts of the unit to monitor the movements of persons/vehicles attending the location. 284
The unit had two surveillance cameras, one monitoring the driveway, and another monitoring the front door. The pinhead CCTV camera at
the front door was inside a milk box, and was attached, via a cable, to a monitor in the lounge room. The camera that was positioned to
record images of the driveway was hooked up to a television monitor in the defendant’s bedroom. According to the event narrative, this
camera was:
… protruding from his bedroom window and pointed towards the main driveway of the unit complex. This camera was attached and
in full operation mode to a monitor/TV in [the defendant’s] bedroom.
This camera has the capability of monitoring all pedestrian and vehicular traffic to the whole unit block at [address]. The defendant’s
would have been able to identify the police approaching from any direction in [street name]. 285
Police also found a tool box containing a quantity of electrical items in the defendant’s bedroom, which police believed had been used to
install, repair or replace the CCTV cameras. According to the event narrative, the defendant admitted to police that he had installed the
cameras in the unit. 286
Another premises in the Greater Metropolitan Region had surveillance cameras and a scanner tuned into the local police frequency.
Police also noted that the occupants of the premises had four dogs. 287 According to the event narrative, the surveillance on the premises
consisted of a:
…sophisticated video camera monitoring system installed at the front entrance of the house. The cameras installed enabled the
defendant to monitor persons attending the front door of the house. A number of monitoring screens were situated in the lounge
room and two screens in the main bedroom. Cameras attached to these monitors were secreted in a pot plant at the front of
the house, a bedroom window frame and another camera attached to an alarm device fixed under the eaves at the front of the
house. 288
282 Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act, s. 11(2)(b).
283 COPS event narrative, Southern Region, Drug Premises Incident 1.
284 COPS event narrative, Greater Metropolitan Region, Drug Premises Incident 25.
285 Ibid. Two occupiers of the premises were charged with allowing their premises to be used as drug premises and giving alarm/obstructing and
delaying a police officer.
286 COPS event narrative, Greater Metropolitan Region, Drug Premises Incident 25. Two occupiers of the premises were charged with both allowing
their premises to be used as drug premises and with giving alarm/obstructing and delaying a police officer.
287 COPS event narrative, Greater Metropolitan Region, Drug Premises Incident 34.
288 Ibid.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 59