Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said anti-fortification laws had given
police new and drastic powers they did not have before.
"If police have reasonable grounds to believe serious crime is going on
behind barricades, then they should tear them down," he said.
Mr Atkinson said the Liberal Party hadn't seen fit in government to
introduce such far-reaching powers.
"I certainly don't recall them suggesting at the time that the law should be
Mr Atkinson said police could seek a fortification removal order from the
Magistrates Court if they had reasonable grounds to believe an existing
building could, or was likely to, shield serious crimes such as those
involving drugs, firearms or explosives.
Such orders can also relate to fortifications concealing evidence of serious
crime or hiding its proceeds.
No action had been taken against existing fortresses.
Residents near forts at Royal Park, Clarence Gardens, Windsor Gardens and
Seaford said the worry of bikie criminal activity was always present.
"It's always in the back of my head if a rival gang started shooting I'd be
caught right in the middle of it," said Mrs Dorothy McCarthy, 70, of
"They are a law unto themselves. You have to have some sort of control and I
don't think the police have . . ." "
But police said there was no justification to tear down fences or raid
"The level of community concern doesn't necessarily link to requirements
that we have to consider under the anti-fortification laws," Detective Chief
Superintendent Denis Edmonds said.
"There are two ways in which the fortifications can be removed in the
planning stages and this has gone past that as it's an established site. "If
we would take action we need to consider what we prove under legislation."