While the quote from The Australian regarding the danger of Anton Piller orders is itself not unreasonable, the article as a whole fails to grasp the scale of the problem.

The so-called Anton Piller orders sought by Amcor are rarely granted because they allow parties in a civil dispute to enter the premises of their legal adversaries without notice to search, seize and inspect critical material which could be destroyed.

In fact AP style orders are being regularly granted in all countries where the local judicial system derives from English Law - it is a favourite tactic of the recording industry in attempts to stop unlicensed downloading - and Australia has already had its fair share: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/32841.html

A major player in the 'download' battle is the Recording Industry Association of America - RIAA - which is particularly ironic because in the US, Anton Piller style orders would almost certainly be judged Unconstitutional.

The name Anton Piller (spelt er not ar) derives from the individual first granted such an order in the English Courts. This type of Court Order has no application to 'the mafia' or organised crime, which are Criminal matters wholly beyond the competence of the Civil Law and the quote from The Australian is therefore somewhat misleading. And in direct contradiction of "They'd be regarded as pretty excessive anywhere outside the former Eastern Europe." the European Union has been actively investigating the possible adaptation of the provisions of English Law to allow EU wide 'Anton Piller orders' to be available under EU commerce legislation.

All of which should worry anyone living in the EU, and the old British Commonwealth.

The fundamental problem is that there is no constitutional facility under the English system by which legal constructs such as Anton Piller (and the equally abused Mary Bell) orders, can be challenged. They exist on precedent and unless a Government is minded to change the law (and no UK Government has ever acknowledged there is a problem and the most notorious use of a Mary Bell - a gagging - order was by a serving UK Minister). It is possible that Human Rights legislation could be used to 'counter claim' against an Anton Piller but as the subject of an Anton Piller only becomes aware of the order at the time it is served, there is no chance that an individual can avoid the force of the order without being in contempt.

Until the law is changed, to limit invasions of privacy and interruption to freedom of expression and association, the only protection that the individual has is the perspicacity of the local judiciary. Sadly judges seem far too ready to accede to the claims of those seeking the orders and to be indifferent to the protection of individual's rights.

No doubt premies however will be very pleased that EV, IRCC, Rawat and their lawyers Quinn and Scattini have put such squalid legal devices to a 'divine use' - premies must feel very, very proud.