by CAA | Dec 25, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
The laws removing a person’s right to drive are designed to improve compliance and reduce death and injury on our roads. This is a laudable and noble endeavour; however when that noble cause also creates undesirable consequences, it should be reviewed.
There is no doubt that the strong penalties imposed on drivers who break road laws have a deterrent effect, particularly on young drivers, but the current sentencing (some mandatory) needs to be discussed and reviewed. Sentencing or penalties should be about correcting behaviour not about destroying lives and making things worse for our community.
The total removal of the right to drive can be a terrible penalty with many unintended consequences that do not always achieve the desired effect. If a penalty also means losing employment, this is very severe for a first offence and is counterproductive to the greater community good.
There will be an argument that the transgressors deserve what they get and they made bad choices and put others at risk – perhaps there is merit in that view, but when considering the overall impact of these penalties that they can be disproportionately unfair, particularly for first or young offenders. There needs to be a pragmatic review of the system. Destroying lives is not good Justice.
We are not talking about dangerous, serial or rogue recidivists. They do not deserve compassion.
There is a bias in imposing penalties against those who are employed in the non-professional sphere. Licence Suspensions and Disqualification coupled with fines (often and routinely higher than for property crime and crimes of violence) may utterly destroy those who need a driver’s licence for their job.
Taking away a person’s livelihood for relatively minor offences is cruel and unjust.
The first thing that happens to most trade-orientated defendants is their job is lost and hope of employment in their trade unlikely. Apprenticeships can be lost forever. Some professional people and workers in retail, health and hospitality can access their work by public transport but frequently a trade worker must be able to drive, not just to access their workplaces but to undertake their work. Mechanics who cannot test drive a car, or plumbers and carpenters who cannot carry their tools to work, are just some of a myriad of jobs that require a licence. We may, of course, add any employment where a driving licence is an employment condition.
Workers who lose their licences and their jobs lose the capacity to pay fines. Defaulting on penalties can lead to imprisonment. The loss of income also means that any loans un-serviced can result in foreclosure and the probable repossession of the goods, usually their car. This inevitably leads to the downgrading or loss of any form of credit rating. The multiplication effect of penalties does not take into account that the offender still has to live and the penalty is further magnified if the driver is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Insolvency and bankruptcy are sometimes inevitable.
In summary, penalties for low range traffic offences and first offenders are destroying lives.
It is incongruous that penalties regularly reported in the media for crimes of violence, drug and property offences (and even some high-range driving offences) seem to be proportionally and sometimes lighter than those imposed on drivers who are first-time offenders for low-range offences.
Poorly applied sentencing penalties will not lead to a reduction in offending, but an escalation as perpetrators convert to victims of the system. They can feel trapped and can see only the option of repeat offending, or resorting to habitual welfare, joining the unemployable.
A feeling of hopelessness and being trapped in the” Unintentional Cycle” pushes many to criminal activity and or drug abuse as an escape or an ill-advised path to a solution. The untold mental damage and perhaps self-destruction is bad enough for the individual but the impact on the community is underrated.
Low-level traffic offenders can go from net contributors to a net liability for the community through welfare.
Drivers need to be accountable for their non-compliance, but we need to review the removal of drivers’ licences to allow the courts to use diversions, conditional Suspensions and Disqualifications.
It seems odd that diversion is the preferred option for the courts in criminal matters, but they do not apply the same standards to traffic matters. The rationale should be identical.
To remove a licence conditionally by limiting hours of driving so that the defendant can continue to work, would seem to be a fairer outcome and the impact on their social life not unreasonable – though even that may be excessive for a first offender.
Why should we not offer Good Behaviour Bonds in traffic cases as is done in some other State jurisdictions?
Under the current system, we still have many recidivist traffic offenders. The current regime does not promote compliance to any higher degree than the alternative approach we recommend.
How many of the current crop of recidivist drivers lost their licence for their first offence and ended up in the “Unintentional Cycle”?
We call on the Government to bring about necessary changes to legislation to provide greater flexibility in sentencing for traffic offences in Victoria, making them at least comparative to the criminal sentencing practices.
Ivan W.Ray Hon. Secretary Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Dec 23, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
23rd December 2018
The question of confidence in our Police Force, which is paramount and for this to grow the community needs to be satisfied their views are being heard and responded to.
The CAA has long advocated that empirical research into these issues needs to be available and released as part of the crime statistics to get a meaningful picture of the policing effectiveness.
Telling people there is less crime is not going to convince too many, experiencing the effects of crime in our community.
.For the vast majority of crimes reported the actual impact on people (victims) is a figure somewhere in the multiple of 10. Therefore, the victim rate for Victoria must realistically be somewhere near five million per annum.
With a state population of a bit over six million there are relatively speaking not to many Victorians not touched by or are victims of crime. The odds of you not being affected and becoming a Victim over a five-year period are remarkably slim.
The “will not happen to me,” Syndrome, is an antithesis in our society.
Quoting a reduction in the number of victims that these statistics indicate shows how poor the understanding is within VicPol of the impact on crime in the community
It would also help if Police Command actually spoke to some victims to get an understanding of the impact of crime, something they clearly do not have.
The CAA are absolutely astounded at the insensitivity and ignorance displayed by the Victoria Police executive to all victims.
Perhaps they meant to say complainants.
An apology would be magnanimous
by CAA | Dec 15, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
15th December 2018
In recent years Victoria has witnessed the appointment of Chief Commissioners of Police that has resulted in the increased politicisation of what must be a truly independent position. Chief Commissioners need to have complete operational authority over the Force if they are to police without fear or favour, malice or ill will, for the benefit of all Victorians.
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) urges that politics be removed from the appointment process by the only practical means – a Joint Parliamentary Committee. A small committee made up of both major parties and at least one Independent should be able to make appointments on pure merit. Political considerations must be put aside.
If evidence for such a change is required one only has to consider the current formation of a Royal Commission to enquire into actions of the Victoria Police. The persistent and consistent, well documented, failure to investigate serious and legitimate complaints against senior members of Force Command and others also provides evidence of the need for effective appointments.
This essential independence should not be confused with accountability as the Chief Commissioner is accountable to the Government and must report on an annual basis the performance of Vitoria Police for which he or she is personally accountable.
While at absolute arm’s length from Operational matters the Government should be able to set the general philosophical direction of policing in this state. In consultation with the Chief Commissioner bench marks should be established by which performance can be measured.
The CAA urges that the Victoria Police be returned to the strong and independent Force it once was.
by CAA | Dec 13, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
13th December 2018
CAA has long advocated for a detailed inquiry into the Victoria Police. We have pointed out major deficiencies of leadership, policies, governance and ethics. Current disclosures have merely confirmed our stance.
The terms of reference of the Royal Commission into the affair involving police informer 3838 are out but they do not go beyond that affair.
However useful that may be it would not be sufficient to address the malaise we detect in the organisation.
A number of the higher echelon have departed, under pressure, and we are hearing of more imminent departures. The 3838 informer scandal has further disclosed a culture identified by the CAA . The government of Victoria has consistently ignored our advice.
A complaint made to the Chief Commissioner of Police misconduct MUST, by law, (The Victoria Police Act s.167) be investigated – by him, or at his direction. That is to say, the truth must diligently be sought as to the truth or falsity of that complaint. Misconduct is defined under the Act as including: “conduct which is likely to bring Victoria Police into disrepute or diminish public confidence in it.”
Yet earlier this year, a complaint of dishonesty against one of those higher echelon (imminently to depart?) was casually set aside by one of the Chief Commissioner’s right hand men, on the purported claim that information could not be released.
No information had been asked for; an investigation was asked for as is mandated, but refused.
The CAA has also lodged two formal complaints with the Chief Commissioner in relation to allegations concerning the behaviour of three Assistant Commissioners. The first complaint was diverted, as somebody getting excited on a key board and second was dismissed as having no basis in fact. Two of those Commissioners have now taken early retirement.
The Chief Commissioner’s principal adviser appears to have been implicated in the plot to protect a very senior officer, now implicated in the 3838 informer scandal.
Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius is on the public record as setting out the correct position – he properly asserted that every complaint against police should be he thoroughly investigated with integrity. He was a chief of the relevant internal investigations group, so he could hardly say anything else.
The problem is that Vicpol Command does not comply with legislated requirements and up until this time has done so with impunity or put into practice the very policies it publishes. That is, unlawful, dishonest; that is hypocritical; that is corrupt; that is symptomatic of conduct the High Court disapproved of in the 3838 affair.
The malaise is deep-rooted; the issue of how particular complaints were mishandled by Mr. Ashton’s office is fully documented, but it was a “red flag” indicating great dangers ahead that are now manifesting.
Time for the CAA to be heeded – a wider inquiry into Vicpol is well overdue.
by CAA | Dec 12, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
12th December 2018
Rule 32.1 of the Uniform Solicitors Rules reads as follows: 32.1 A solicitor must not make an allegation against another Australian legal practitioner of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct unless the allegation is made bona fide and the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that available material by which the allegation could be supported provides a proper basis for a complaint.
Contrast the conditions placed on lawyers before they can complain about another lawyer with the conditions placed on police.
A lawyer effectively has to make sufficient inquiries in order to satisfy the “reasonable grounds” and “available material/proper basis” conditions.
Case in point: a lawyer hears rumours that 3838 is acting as a police informant. How does that lawyer satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds before making a complaint? It is an almost impossible ask, given the nature of the circumstances. Where does the lawyer get the material to form a proper basis?
Now imagine that a police officer heard the same rumours and said nothing. Several years later there is a Royal Commission and his or her inaction is exposed. Who suffers? The lawyer cites rule 32.1 and says “Sorry, I didn’t have reasonable grounds and had no access to material.” Where does the police officer hide? Nowhere!
Lawyers are officers of the court for life or until struck off the roll. Yet they do not carry the same positive obligations to expose professional misconduct of their peers as a junior constable. Should that remain the case?
It is suspected that 3838’s behaviour was not the well-kept secret the police gang of 15 thought. Yet no lawyer (besides 3838) will get a kick in the rump, because of rule 32.1. Will the junior police involved be so benevolently treated?
Why should lawyers be held to a lower standard than police?
by CAA | Dec 12, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
12th December 2018
Once again CAA acknowledges with gratitude efforts of the Herald Sun newspaper, and in particular of Justin smith, (21/12/2018, p. 57) in pointing out the obvious, and ongoing, folly of our judicial officers’ sentencing practices.
Although we do not agree that the sentence meted out to a very, very negligent bus driver (who injured his passengers by crashing into a low bridge) was too severe, we fully concur that normally the sentences given to repeat, and dangerous, offenders are ludicrously lenient.
That is why, to some, the bus driver’s sentence seemed harsh. That this previously blameless man was treated as other, worse, offenders are not!
CAA has noted that some judges have recently felt it necessary to acknowledge the public’s strong disagreement with Victoria’s sentencing practices – that is, to acknowledge, and even to attempt to justify their practices – but remarkably to apparently take no further notice of public disquiet.
Perhaps they will take notice of Justin smith. They have clearly taken no notice of Parliament’s expanding use of mandatory sentencing rules, or the urgings of members of that Parliament, and certainly no notice of the statutory maximum penalties available to them; serious repeat offenders who have committed extremely dangerous crimes are repeatedly let off with a very strong talking-to but very weak actual sentence.
No wonder we have repeat offenders. There are clearly too few disadvantages in their chosen courses of conduct. They have learned.
Will our courts now listen, and learn?
by CAA | Dec 10, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
10th of December 2018
We had an International Anti-Corruption Day on 9 December. Did you know that? To mark the occasion Victoria’s IBAC was a joint signatory to one of the most hypocritical, not to mention downright dishonest, and self-serving documents produced at public expense. It says this, among other things:
“It is a matter for each public sector leader to determine how they will respond to corruption. Will they exercise the leadership that is required and demonstrate an unshakable willingness and determination to address cultural problems that enable and support corruption? Or will they take another path and perhaps delude themselves in thinking there is no corruption in their organisation? Will they try to ‘hush up’ allegations of corruption, or will they build strong ‘speak up’ cultures? Will they deal with corruption and integrity issues quietly, internally, behind closed doors, instead of openly and honestly? Will they dismiss issues as ‘just a few bad apples’ rather than looking for systemic problems? Will they be more concerned about protecting their own or their agency’s reputation rather than exposing corruption and taking the actions required to build corruption resistant organisations?”
This comes from the organisation that deliberately chose to condone a systematic and long-lived cover-up of corrupt police who framed a citizen (and to lie about their purported reasons). This comes from the organisation that deliberately chose to turn a blind eye to the infamous Red Shirts Rort involving a clear conspiracy to steal money from the taxpayers by the very public sector leaders now being addressed.
We do not dispute the sentiments of the document from which this extract has been taken. We do not doubt that several of the co-signatories (Australia’s anti-corruption bodies) are decent, honest and honourable people, but we do say that in at least the case of Victoria the actions lag far behind the rhetoric.
Perhaps this is because so many of IBAC’s staff came from the dishonoured Office of Police Integrity, but there should have been ample time for that handicap to have been overcome – ample time for “a few bad apples” to be identified and discarded.
There is that word again – “integrity”. CAA has called for that trait to be the hallmark of our public institutions. We have advocated for public agencies to adopt this standard in all their activities and be tested against a bench mark.
To illustrate the point clearly, we assert that there has been little apparent and transparent integrity in the leadership of police responses to the Red Shirts Rort; there were clear attempts to ignore this obvious crime; there has been clear differential treatment applied to different classes of possible offenders; and there is apparent delay – dragging the chain – in finalising what should have been a fairly simple fraud investigation.
Did they think it would all go away after the election? Were our officials “more concerned about protecting their own…reputation rather than involved in addressing seeming “cultural problems that enable and support corruption”- it is all down to Integrity.
by CAA | Dec 10, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
10th December 2018
Motor cars fitted with engine immobiliser has by and large become the norm for late model cars in Victoria.
Whether this has led to a reduction in car thefts is a moot point but what we know what it has done. It has increased the frequency of home invasions by perpetrators accessing the car keys.
And now police are calling for the public to hide the keys and not leave then easily visible near door or windows.
The unintended consequences may make this advice counterproductive.
Now the crooks will have to wake up the victims to locate the keys, good one VicPol.
There are a number of commercial tracking devices that owners can fit to their vehicle that can be tracked by their mobile phone to alert Police.
Another top idea, which will lead to an increase in phone theft along with the keys.
The Victoria Police is encouraging an increase of risk to the community not lowering it.
Overseas fingerprint recognition technology was installed in some high end vehicles to protect them. The problem was the thieves used the owners fingers to open and activate the cars. Whether the fingers were still attached to the victim was problematic – the initiative was soon phased out.
The CAA has for a long time proposed a system that will deal with all of these concerns and add substantially to community safety not detract from it.
The G-Tag is waiting; it only needs a genuine commitment from Government and Police to achieve the reality of a safer community not a more dangerous one.
by CAA | Dec 9, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
9th December 2018
The sanctity of a human Life versus the sanctity of the Criminal Justice system, who wins?
When is it appropriate in our civilised society when the State knowingly sanctions actions, which could jeopardise a life?
For the first time we are torn between civilised values which form the foundation of our society and respect for the law (State).
These two values clash dramatically in the recent decisions handed down by the High Court of Australia in the Lawyer X Case.
The Judgement turned up some interesting findings that have left us very conflicted and we all should be concerned.
We believe in the sanctity of life but the courts have ruled that the integrity of the Justice system supersedes the anonymity of Lawyer X.
“The public interest in preserving EF’s anonymity must be subordinated to the integrity of the criminal justice system. “
The Court acknowledged and clearly understood the grave risk to this informer.
“To say so is not to overlook that, on the evidence before the courts below and now before this Court, EF and her children will be at grave risk of harm unless EF agrees to enter into the witness protection program. Nor is it to ignore that, thus far, EF has declined to do so, taking the view that Victoria Police cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality and apparently that she would prefer to wear the risk than subject herself and her children to the limitations and burdens that witness protection would surely entail.”
We do not accept what Lawyer X or her Police managers did and agree totally with the High Court that;
“It is further not without significance that Victoria Police may bear a large measure of responsibility for putting EF in the position in which she now finds herself by encouraging her to inform against her clients as she did. “
The lines were clearly crossed and the role of a Royal Commission is to identify who did what and when.
Where there is a problem, no matter what Lawyer X did, her/a life is more important than the Criminal Justice system by any reasonable measure. That is why we have a Criminal Justice System supposedly designed to separate us from lawlessness.
At this point in time we are unaware of Lawyer X being charged with a criminal offence. In that context the High Court’s Judgement defies the tenet of our Justice System, ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, albeit that there is a possibility of charges at some stage.
At this time, this treatment is imposed on an innocent woman.
This decision will have a far-reaching negative impact on Policing in Australia both at a State and Federal level. Police informers can no longer expect absolute anonymity and now any court can find that the public interest in preserving an informant’s anonymity must be subordinated to the integrity of the criminal justice system. How that will now be interpreted by the subordinate courts will be interesting.
There is also the impact on National Security and the anonymity of informers in terrorism or other threats to our national interest.
Lawyer X provided a completely rational and reasonable excuse for not entering the witness Protection Program in Victoria. The experience of this informer would lead any reasonable person to conclude confidentiality within Victoria Police, essential for the program, has defects.
We are absolutely floored by the next part of the findings (remember these are not suggestions but findings at law).
“If she chooses to expose her children to similar risks, the State is empowered to take action to protect them from harm.”
That is saying that her Children can be taken from her by the State if she does not enter the Victorian Witness Protection Program – courts engaging in behaviours that would absolutely stun the average citizen.
Do what we say or you lose your children?
This ungodly mess surrounding Lawyer X was perpetrated by people who no doubt will be ultimately held to account. To sort all this out and avoid the criminals for whom this scheme was designed to control, benefitting from the misdeeds of others, will need a creative solution.
If the High Court is signalling that recruiting lawyers as informants is no longer on, then the Court may well need to say so in more definitive terms. Otherwise, police are likely to simply look for new ways around the current situation. Perhaps it is time for the Parliament to legislate in order to clarify matters.
As it stands, the law has become no clearer, the people Victoria have become no safer and they are now likely to be asked to foot the bill for what is likely to be a rush by serious criminals to exploit this unfortunate situation.
The consequences of this matter could well be horrific and impact on the safety of Victorians swept up in a new maelstrom of violence and a reticence for people to provide essential information to the Police will cause lawlessness to flourish.
All caused by the Criminal Justice system who are supposed to protect us not their values.
This matter must now be settled by the political class, the only authority with the capacity to resolve this issue with Legislation.
The confidence in the Justice System is of paramount importance but does it supersede a life?
WE THINK NOT……
by CAA | Dec 8, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
8th December 2018
The Lawyer X exposé has brought into sharp relief the question of privilege and how it applies in our society.
The common use of privilege that we are most familiar with applies in our interactions with Lawyers, Priests, Police, Politicians, Journalists, and Doctors. Privilege is an important right that serves the society well, in general terms, and we would be a lot poorer without it, but where there is a problem where privilege and ethics collide.
At what stage do the rights of society transcend the rights of privilege, is that never?
In each of these examples you judge whether the Ethics out way the privilege.
A priest hears a confession that a suspected paedophile is excited at the prospect of a young nephew coming to stay with him. Should the priest inform the authorities?
A doctor hears from a patient that they are sick of life and want to end it. Should the Doctor alert Authorities and the family to allow intervention?
A Journalist has knowledge of an horrendous crime but claims privilege over identifying the source. Who’s’ rights have precedent, the community, the Journalist or the perpetrators.
Police are given information from an informer in relation to crimes being committed by very dangerous criminals. Is the protection of the identity of the informer more important than the integrity of justice?
In the later example the High court of Australia has recently ruled that the preserving aspects of the anonymity of a Police informer is subordinate to the integrity of the justice system. Does that ruling now effect all privilege?
It would seem on the surface that privilege is sacrosanct, well almost, depending on who you are or how loud your voice is.
A lot of the privilege exercised is not legislated per sea but is common practise within the profession and usually covered by the rules of that profession. Breaking those rules of themselves is not usually a criminal offence but if for example in breaking those rules the consequence perverts the course of justice, then there is criminality.
Additionally if maintaining those rules leads to criminal activity the question of Conspiracy by the Professional can come into the equation. Although to our knowledge never tested at Law the possibility is arguable.
The clash between privilege and ethics is a big one and must be addressed for the benefit of practitioners and the broader community. We have long passed the ability rely on sometimes obscure professional arrangements to deal with this matter.
Rather than Legislate, which would be a minefield of competing values, there is a need to establish an Ethics Authority to deal with any grey areas encountered by the professions. Staffed by graduates of the School of Life rather than stacked with those who may have graduated with only academic theories of life never experienced, will ensure the community values are balanced.
by CAA | Nov 28, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
28th November 2018
The State elections are over and some folk are tempted to rule a line and say the Labor government has a mandate to move ahead – even to the extent of “ignoring” the past. But there remains the unfinished business of the infamous Red Shirts Rort.
Since that disgraceful episode burst upon the public consciousness there has been a decided stench of corruption and cover up surrounding it.
- The celebrated IBAC refused to properly investigate – to its undying shame.
- The Ombudsman did a good, but very limited job in the face of powerful government opposition.
- And even after the Ombudsman’s report was released the Victoria Police refused to do its obvious duty until forced to take some action by public opinion.
- Even then the police did not treat all suspects equally, but showed clear favouritism towards members of the Parliament who were said to be involved – and the Chief Commissioner could not explain this when asked.
- The delay in completing what seems to be a fairly simple fraudulent misappropriation (theft) of taxpayers’ money and falsification of public accounting records is inexplicable.
The elections are over but the stench lingers on. There was always a possibility that if the conservatives had won the election any subsequent action against the suspected politicians in the Rort affair, would be painted as some sort of pay-back. That is no longer possible – the conservatives did not win.
To remove the stench there needs to be firm and deliberate, and open action to bring the matter to a conclusion and show Victorians that the law has been applied.
That is what an investigation means – discovering the truth in accordance with legal specifications, in the interests of justice.
CAA again calls upon Mr. Ashton and our public authorities to demonstrate that the Red Shirt Rort affair has been thoroughly investigated with complete integrity.
by CAA | Nov 22, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
11th November 2018
The issue of the “Red Shirts” has rapidly descended into a farce. It is no longer just an artifice.
That the investigators have allegedly not been given access to phone records and the Ombudsman’s files is shameful. The allegation that police investigators were given special instructions to not follow protocols with the politician suspects is outrageous.
That the principal architect identified by the Ombudsman has not been arrested, interviewed, and charged with the alleged offences is beyond comprehension.
This investigation process would seem to be creating more criminal offences as it progresses. If what is reported is accurate then the score card for ‘Perverting the Course of Justice ‘, Conspiracy with others to Pervert the Course of Justice’ and Misconduct in Public Office’ are raking up possible perpetrators on a daily basis, mostly within VicPol and possibly OPP.
The Public must now be beyond outrage.
The hot potato approach of referring the matter to IBAC is interesting given they have already declined to investigate the matter in June and can only be interpreted as a deliberate delaying tactic.
In all my experience I have never seen what should be a relatively straight forward investigation turned into such a dogs breakfast. Not in my view, by the investigators.
Vicpol’s action will inevitably lead to an inquiry where the truth can be established and no doubt careers ended.
For VicPol this is an ‘own goal’.
Kel Glare.
by CAA | Nov 20, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
20th November 2018
The unresolved ‘Red Shirts’ affair is with the OPP to provide advice to the Chief Commissioner on prosecuting those involved in this artifice.
The CAA agrees with the Herald Sun 20/11/18 that there is an overwhelming obligation to let voters know before Saturday if prosecutions are likely.
The electorate must go to the poles informed not in chasm of ignorance.
The Chief Commissioner has the responsibility to inform the electorate irrespective of what advice he may need or have.
It is no longer, whether a prosecution will succeed. The issue is whether the allegations are true or false and that can only be determined by a Court or the stench will linger for eternity.
The possibility of a constitutional crises cannot be discounted but the issue will be who caused it.
If the electorate is informed and they re-elect the current Government and a crises ensures this was the electorate exercising their democratic right and that must be respected.
If on the other hand the matter is still in limbo come the election and the Government is returned only to face a constitutional crises in the New Year, it will be the Chef Commissioner that will be held to account. A legacy no Chief Commissioner would enjoy.
Arguably, we may be faced with another election in 2019.
Whether a prosecution fails or succeeds it is a matter for the Courts after testing and evaluating the evidence not the executive arm of Government.
If there is a case to answer all participants must be charged and the electorate advised, this has to happen before Saturday.
Ivan W Ray
by CAA | Nov 18, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
18th November 2018
As Victorians move towards casting their vote the CAA has raised the sceptre of Integrity as the key element that is missing from many of our bureaucratic institutions including the Judiciary the Government, Police, IBAC and any other entity funded by the public purse.
You are funding these functions of Government and they are supposed to be serving you so at the very least you are entitled to have those entities operated and function with Integrity.
If we are inclined to donate to a charitable cause, we are automatically influenced by our perceived or actual knowledge of the integrity of the organisation that is managing the donations for the cause. We would shy away from a charitable endeavour if we suspected that the function of the charity lacked Integrity and so we should, irrespective of the cause.
A government we elect should be no different.
The CAA intends to publicly comment on matters where we identify that Integrity has been compromised and call on the organisation to respond.
If the entity does not respond then we assume the veracity of the breech alleged and we will regularly bring those breeches to the public notice.
A breech of integrity is only a hairs breadth away from corruption and if we want good governance of this state we need to ensure that Integrity is retained at all levels.
We have been disappointed at the lack lustre convoluted and in our view unsatisfactory performance of the various entities and authorities that are supposed to manage these issues. The performance of the current Government is testament to their failure.
They do not focus on what we the community might expect but bury issues in legalese to avoid punitive actions. It is extremely rare for any of these entities to detect lack of Integrity but perform half-baked responses to complaints from the public. They are all reactive and not proactive and their in lies their failure.
Governments that do not focus on what we the community expect and do everything possible to avoid accountability must ultimately expect to be held to account. It is extremely rare for many publicly funded organizations to acknowledge when they have acted with a lack of Integrity, and, when caught out, usually fail to respond adequately to complaints from the public. Being reactive and not proactive lies at the heart of their failure.
Failures of integrity must be pursued without fear or favour and the appropriate watchdog directed to take appropriate action. Independently of Government but reporting back to the Government.
An Integrity Commission can be the, ‘police on the beat’ detecting and identifying Integrity breaches and ensuring corrections.
The focus should be on correcting behaviours or processes and punitive actions reserved only for blatantly unlawful actions.
by CAA | Nov 13, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
13th November 2018
The issue of police numbers seem on the surface to be very confusing. On the one hand the Government is claiming number increases and the Opposition claiming the opposite.
The ABC Fact checker claims the Opposition is wrong but shows little understanding of police resourcing leading to misleading outcomes and the ABC is wrong.
Over recent years the Police numbers (overall) have increased to where Victoria has the highest ratio of sworn Police to every 100,000 population in Australia but also the highest crime rates.
The problem is in the definition of Operational Police that has been blurred in recent years by political manipulation of the real situation.
To understand the issue of the role of Police there are three distinct categories.
- Operational Police The frontline police working designated shifts generally operating out of Police Stations servicing the needs of the Community – manning the Divisional Vans, foot patrols and conducting other community interaction. They respond to any and every call from the community, they interact with the young and the old, the infirm and the aggressive. There are no boundaries to the demands on their work and they are in the ‘front line’, working to keep their community safe.
When you move past those members the descriptive phase ‘Operational Support Police’ applies. If Operational Police are involved in important duties and from time to time are in harms way their role is Operational Support for the front line Police.
- Operational Support Police. The Operational Support police are there to do as the name suggests and this includes all the specialist functions including the Special Operations Group, Air Wing, Crime Scene Officers, Task Forces, Squads, Groups or Units, Dog Squad, Water Police, Critical Incident Support Police and a list as long as your arm usually referred to by their acronyms.
Most of these units can be identified by a commonality that they do not work twenty four hour shifts and or they do not respond in the first instance to community needs There are exceptions but they are still Operational Support.
- Non- Operational Support Police. This covers the rest of the Police service including Management, Command and a wide range of tasks that have little or no Operational contact with the public.
All the functions in these categories are important. However the second and third category must never lose sight of their role,’ Support’. The pendulum can move to where the numbers in Support diminishes the frontline capability, which would on the surface seem to be a problem that has evolved in recent years.
The Government claims that increasing Police numbers is necessary because of population growth and recruiting stagnation over many years is attributable to both major parties are correct. The full benefit of the numbers authorised will not be achieved until 2020.
When the Opposition claims that Operational Police numbers are down, and based on information from frontline Police and the Police Association, they are correct. Explaining, in part, the Crime Tsunami.
Normally the Government of the day does not or should not influence Police allocation of resources. However, when the public is at risk then they have an obligation to intervene at a corporate level ensuring that police allocations are consistent with policing philosophies. That is not a Political interference but an intercurrence.
Where does that leave the voter when the crime Tsunami that has hit is still being felt?
The choices you have are:
Stick with the Government then endure more of the same. We can anticipate as the Police numbers increase the current ratios will remain constant with the pendulum in our view leaning perilously too far away from Operations. If you are satisfied with the ‘status quo’ then that is your call.
The Opposition however has indicated in a number of Policy announcements that they will emphasise Operational Policing, Crime Prevention and, critically, Service Delivery. That means that they will move to adjust the policing philosophies to achieve better operational policing outcomes swinging the pendulum back to balance.
When casting your vote and considering this issue remember that all the claims and counter claims are irrelevant it is how safe you feel and the confidence you have if something goes awry that you will receive the service you are entitled.
These are the facts that should influence your decision at the forth-coming election.
by CAA | Nov 12, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
12th November 2018
The Herald Sun reported (Frontline thin in hot spots 12/11/18) that the available Police at Frankston, a key metropolitan station had been cut in half.
The CAA had been led to believe that most stations operate on the” 70 -30 rule” at best, with the full burden of policing left to just 70% of the members.
Frankston takes this to a new alarming high. If that is the situation at Frankston what is happening at other large stations?
The community must be outraged at the impact on their safety and basic freedoms that effective Policing ensures. Nothing highlights this more than police taking hours and sometimes never, responding to the community needs. So much for Service delivery.
The CAA has long advocated that Police Stations must be the staffing priority and not the crucible of resource simply there to service other operational support or non-operational management whims.
This was demonstrated at the most recent Bourke Street incident where one Divisional Van Crew confronted and dealt admirably with a major incident. It was not long for huge numbers of Police to descend on the scene after the fact.
That raises the question of just where were all these police when the original call was made? With the numbers that appeared it is unbelievable that there were not multiple resources patrolling the city on foot and in cars, on bikes or horses. It would seem police managers would rather have them in an office in case! This is reactive as opposed to proactive policing. The latter to reduce the likelihood of these things happening.
The dark cloud that descends over Police staffing strategies is the increased risk of physical harm, stress and PTSD on the remaining members who must grind away with an ever-increasing workload.
The consequences are inevitable and the increase of victims in the community and within police ranks will be the outcome.
The Government cannot ‘wash its hands’ and side step this issue claiming ‘Separation of Powers’ and notwithstanding that politicians are in electoral mode this situation is very urgent and must be a addressed and the community given assurances of a solution.
by CAA | Nov 12, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
12th November 2018
A Senior Police member at Rosebud (HS9/11/18) laments the lack of Police resources and the management decision not to deploy extra Police to Rosebud for the traditional busy holiday season.
The astounding reason given – it was,” not busy enough”.
Again, Victoria Police have succumbed to the slavery of statistics, which replaces sound operational decisions.
The police member identified that the staffing levels at Rosebud are inadequate now and secondly an influx of holidaymakers will make the situation impossible to police given that domestics which tie up police crews for a minimum of four hours, reach epidemic proportions over Christmas.
To the credit of the current members at Rosebud it is clear that they are very effective even with the current staffing levels.
The most effective policing produces no measurable results because of the absence of crime and social disorder.
That large numbers of Victorians move into the area over Christmas and New Year reducing Policing demands elsewhere it defies logic that the staffing in the area is not boosted. The member is not talking about Water police, Air wing, or Mounted Branch who cannot park their vehicles in a driveway to attend an incident.
There are two types of frontline operational members, the ones that provide the policing service day in day out and are the ones we must rely on, and then others who are frontline police support who are important but are limited in their Policing response.
This whole issue is a management problem within Vicpol that must be addressed.
by CAA | Nov 12, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
12th November 2018
I start with the position that the present approach to the issue of illicit drugs in this State is full of anomalies, contradictions and anti-social ramifications.
Those who imbibe them are volunteers – nobody forces them to do so.
Making these drugs illegal, but at the same time assisting their consumption through such things as so-called “safe injecting rooms”, or testing pills at music festivals (to make sure they are “safe” to take) is the very height of hypocrisy and brings the law into disrepute. BUT BRINGING THE LAW INTO EVEN GREATER DISREPUTE IS WHAT HAPPENS IN COURTS WHEN THE ISSUE OF DRUGS AND DRUG-TAKING IS RAISED BY THOSE DEFENDING DEFENDANTS.
There is ample precedent for the proposition that self-induced influence of chemicals, coupled with conduct that might otherwise be disregarded, should be taken seriously and add to society’s criticism (or punishment) of the overall conduct by a person.
There is, and always will be, the issue that some drugs when taken – whether unlawfully or lawfully – can cause the imbiber to act in a manner dangerous to both himself and others, on the roads, in the workplace, or in the home.
But these volunteers, who choose to act unlawfully and dangerously, then commonly claim special privilege in mitigation of the nature of the offence or penalty, by virtue of that unlawful behaviour.
Such pleas or claims by the defence should not merely be disregarded, they ought not be allowed to be raised! So long as those sorts of claims relate to voluntary conduct by the accused they should not go to reduce the culpability of the volunteer.
To the contrary, such evidence should go to EXTEND the culpability of the volunteer. E.g. if a man gives himself some “dutch courage”, or reduces his inhibitions, after imbibing some chemical or for that matter alcohol, so as to conduct himself in an criminal manner, then his culpability should be increased in the interests of other citizens. We punish a person found drunk in charge of a motor car, even though no actual harm occurs to the public. We punish a person found drunk in possession of a loaded firearm, even if the weapon is not fired.
The law used to be fairly clear that self-induced intoxication was not a defence to a criminal charge. For the sake of clarity and effectiveness, we would make it plain in law that any self-induced state is both no defence but also no mitigation, either of the seriousness of any criminal charge or any subsequent penalty for that charge.
That approach should specifically apply to claims of addiction.
by CAA | Nov 9, 2018 | PTSD, Uncategorized
9th November 2018
I had not long finished publishing a Post I did earlier today highlighting that poor management decisions that place substantial stress on Police members – I am confident that the Senior policeman at Rosebud referred to in that post did not speak out because of spite, but frustration and genuine concerns for his community and his staff.
I then received an email to let me know that yet another police member has apparently committed suicide at a police station and had been discovered by colleagues this morning.
This leaves me with opposing unpleasant emotions – Very angry that this death was probably avoidable and angry that the other members had to deal with one of their own and the consequences that may evolve with them.
I am also deeply saddened that a family has lost a loved one and Police have lost another colleague.
Most of my anger is directed at the Government and Victoria Police who have known that members are under unrealistic stress and it would appear that little is being done- certainly not enough to avoid this tragedy.
We do not, of course, know all the circumstances but that is hardly the point as any plaintive justification or excuse will be rejected and properly dismissed.
The Government and the Chief Commissioner are jointly responsible and must own the issue, accept responsibility and make meaningful changes – I am afraid that Premier Andrews’s continual mantra on police numbers is clearly not the solution. Something the CAA has been highlighting for a considerable time.
It is a management problem.
by CAA | Nov 8, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
What a shocking headline and to think this is the tip of the iceberg.
Given that most of the perpetrators are children themselves, the response is even more alarming than the problem.
The implied strategy to prosecute is indicative of the failed Law and Order principles applied in this State where it is more important to prosecute than prevent the offence in the first place.
Many of the perpetrators, children as young as 10 years old, have barely learnt that there can be consequences to their actions and charging a few kids will not help many victims.
To argue that it will be a deterrent is absolute rubbish.
The severity and the effect of the problem must not be understated it can be devastating for the victim but to handle it in a draconian fashion will inevitably lead to greater problems.
We must be about preventing or managing the problem.
This problem demands proactive action and that means reintroducing the Police in Schools program so that children can deal directly with a Police member who can through education, reduce the problem and where it flares nip it in the bud before it escalates out of control.
That is being victim, not perpetrator focused, the direction unfortunately our society is inextricably heading.
Election time is a good time to contact your local MP and express your concern. Just an email will help.
by CAA | Nov 6, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
6th November 2018
Thank you for this interview on the ABC “Four Corners” program your Honour. It explains where we have a problem.
It was not an enlightenment or even a surprise to know that the Africans do not account for the majority of your (Court) work and nobody including the media is claiming otherwise. Most prosecuted African children would go through the Children’s Court so you would not see them anyway.
“If you are an African offender, and certainly if you’re an African youth of South Sudanese background from the western suburbs of Melbourne, rest assured your case will be reported upon.”- said County Court Judge Peter Kidd
This was enlightening, as most of us ‘not informed’ Victorians have believed that this ethnic group are also well represented in the South Eastern suburbs. Obviously somebody is wrong. Believe it or not we don’t care where they live it is the type of crime they commit that has the State worried.
Comments attributed to the good Judge Kidd are more judgemental on the judiciary than us ‘not informed’ or the media.
Mr Kidd also said,” the media was unfairly criticising how judges were too soft on young offenders.”
That was a surprise, maybe the Politicians bringing in mandatory minimums might be a clue to the courts sentencing values. Seems the courts have not figured that out yet.
“Unfortunately, a lot of the criticism that occurs is not informed, and it’s not balanced, and it’s not fair.
“That’s dangerous, because that undermines their confidence in the justice system. That’s our concern. It’s an attack effectively upon the rule of law,” said Judge Kidd.
You are kidding aren’t you? What is dangerous is your effusing over the prospect of rehabilitating young offenders then being insultingly dismissive of victims – perhaps they need to be rehabilitated back to a life before they had it wrecked by your youthful offender.
Seems that the judiciary might be well served by a morning assembly every Monday to recite their oath under the flag. The words ‘Fairness’ to be emphasised.
Makes a strong case for contracts for the judiciary.
Your Honour’s comments were, in football parlance, an ‘Own Goal’.
by CAA | Nov 2, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
Red Shirts
This is the dilemma facing the Chief Commissioner over the Red Shirts saga. Resolved either way that will probably be his legacy.
If he charges the politicians suspected of rorting in the Red Shirts affair he will be lauded by the majority of Victorians who want to know before they exercise their vote.
It will also dispel allegations of Political interference in the process. He will also be pilloried as interfering in politics by a noisy sector of the community who do not understand the law and the binding separation of powers conventions.
If he does not charge them he must satisfy the population that there has been no offences disclosed. A tall order when the allegations have not been put to them and they have made admissions in the public arena.
In making his decision, the Chief Commissioner must protect the integrity of his Office and Victoria Police more generally.
Victorians have started to vote so the clock is ticking for a resolution. The public have an absolute right to be informed.
Chef Commissioner we believe you to be a man of integrity therefore you only have one option. Let Victorians exercise their informed democratic right, do your job and leave the courts to be the final arbiter.
A legacy of doing the right thing without fear or favour is something to be truly proud of.
by CAA | Oct 31, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
31st October 2018
Andrew Bushnell in his article HS 31/10/18. “Give victims the right to appeal soft sentences,” is an excellent article and it is about time we had a serious discussion about the impact of sentencing on victims that is solution orientated. Victims not only suffer the consequences of the crime but are too often further traumatised by inadequate and charitable application of the sentences determined by our elected government.
Our Judiciary seem unable to comprehend the impact on victims or how the community may view their appallingly soft application of the law. They are very quick to criticise governments setting minimum sentencing legislation but fail to grasp that this would not be occurring if their sentencing reflected community expectations in the first place.
They also fail to pursue financial compensation from the perpetrators who may well be skint at court but will accumulate wealth at some point at which time they must pay for their crime. Jail time does not expunge the financial debt they owe a victim.
Your Honours have brought this on yourselves –no sympathy exists for your disquiet over this matter.
To have to endure yet another court procedure, Application to seek leave to appeal, and a subsequent appeal may be just too much for many victims leading to undesirable consequences for victims.
We should however reconsider the role of the Victims Commissioner and empower the Commissioner to intervene in cases on behalf of the victims and direct the DPP.
Vitoria has an excellent and very competent Commissioner, Mr Greg Davies and he would be well positioned and capable to undertake this role but the government has so limited his capacity by budgetary constraints he is only part time effectively nobbling the Commissioner from making any meaningful impact. Given his restraints, he does an excellent job.
Victims may be far better served by having a functioning Victims Commission with the capacity to look after their needs and provide advice, legal representation and guidance for the appeals process.
by CAA | Oct 19, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
19th October 18
Recently we witnessed the illuminated spectacle of some judges entering into the defence of the sentencing practices of our courts. That is to say, they fully recognised widespread public concern exists about those practices.
On 17 October 2018, those concerns were yet again shown to be justified – and the courts proven to be guilty!
A man who deliberately overdosed, and killed, a thirteen-year-old girl was given a slap over the wrist with a damp feather; and they call that justice? He knowingly used a dangerous and illegal drug, and he was no stranger to criminal activity – no innocent first offender here.
It is difficult to imagine a more serious offence against good order, decency, public tranquillity – all those hallmarks of a civilised society that we hold dear – than this wilful destruction of a young and gullible child as this victim was. If this was not premeditated murder it was so close as to almost be indistinguishable from murder. And the killer will probably be set loose on society some time in 2019.
Time to make our judges accountable, and our laws more in tune with public expectations. We live in a democracy where, supposedly, those expectations carry great weight.
Yet again our courts have delivered injustice. Justice may be on the right path as asserted by Justin Quill (HS 19/10/18) but it is time to pull the chain harder.
