Disclosure Dangers !

The inquest has finally got under way into what became known as the " Lindt Cafe Siege " of December, 2014.  The problem is that full and frank disclosure of the tactics police used to take down the gunman holding seventeen hostages will alert terrorists and allow them to develop counter measures.  The New South Wales Police Commissioner has asked that public reference to " diversionary tactics " and the " Surveillance type capabilities " used not be entered on the public record.

Unfortunately, this siege ended with three deaths and it is necessary to look closely to develop the most effective protocols for ending future sieges.  The present terrorist culture is leaning towards similar " lone wolf "  public attacks and we need to know what we did that was wrong - and what we did that was right in bringing the Lindt siege  to a close.

Man Monis walked into that cafe with a backpack that he claimed contained a bomb and he was armed with a twelve gauge shotgun with a five shot magazine.  He detained seventeen members of the public and had them display a Islamic State flag in the window.  The police cleared the street and placed a sniper in an office overlooking the cafe.  At various times Monis was distracted and several hostages managed to escape.

The culmination of the siege occurred when Monis murdered cafe manager Tori Johnson.  The police then rushed the cafe, throwing " flash/bangs " to distract and firing a fusillade of shots from assault rifles.  Unfortunately, either a shot or a richocet from a police weapon caused the death of one of the remaining hostages, Barrister Katrina Dawson.

There was a degree of public conjecture on whether ending this siege was better handled by the police or whether it should have been handed to the special forces within the Australian military. This raises the issue of jurisdiction and that is an imperative that this inquest needs to settle.  It is highly likely that siege situations may be a future outcome as radicalized extremists bring urban warfare to Australia.

There is no question that the police who rushed the Lindt cafe were courageous.  There was the expectation that Monis had a bomb and had one been detonated everyone in that cafe could be expected to die or be seriously injured.   The only question is whether military specialists who are specifically trained to take down terrorists could have resolved the siege with lesser firepower - and consequently lesser loss of life.

Probably trying to reach such a conclusion in a public enquiry such as an inquest is inappropriate.  The issue of the " public's right to know " bumps up against the " need for discretion " in revealing the tactics employed by both the police and the military in dealing with siege situations.   This siege enthralled the nation - and indeed was world news - and the media are reporting this inquest with rapt attention.

The coroner would be wise to bow to that request from the police commissioner and it seems that the decision on who has the element of control in future siege situations must rest with the government.
The details needed to make that decision are " sensitive " and need to be arrived at by way of a conference where both the police and the military clearly state their case.   Once the government allocates the primary responsibility all other agencies must acquiesce and act under that command.