If you speak to former senior police officers, they will tell you they fear an outbreak similar to the drug wars of Mokbel, Williams and others in the 1990s and the bike gang wars in the 2000s.
The murder last week of a former bikie and convicted killer, in one of Melbourne’s most prestigious and famous suburbs barely 3 km from the heart of Melbourne’s CBD is an ominous sign.
What leads someone to flagrantly walk up in a well-lit area (albeit late at night,but maybe not for the nightclub scene) and brazenly shoot a person who is walking with another in what is a busy part of Melbourne?
Put aside the personal animosity and/or financial motives that encourage this type of brazen behaviour, it is a total disrespect of our laws that concerns us most. This disrespect has been brought about by very poor government policy at both the state and council levels. We have at all levels of government a soft-on-crime policy that simply encourages people to disrespect the law, the police, and worse, their fellow members of society.
And it is not just one bad policy decision but a combination of many that drives this behaviour. If you are shown that there are little or no consequences for breaching the law, then many bad actors will breach the law.
We now have this on a scale I have never seen before, and the last straw has been the Spent Convictions Act.
This is perhaps the craziest piece of legislation I have ever come across. Sure, spent convictions for minor offences, especially when committed whilst young, is good policy. But to allow a person convicted of a serious offence, violence, robbery/home invasion or fraud to apply for their convictions to be spent secretly is bad policy.
The hearings (if at all as a magistrate can act without a hearing) are private and only the Attorney General, Police Commissioner, and the convicted felon appear. But what is crazy is that not only does a victim of a crime have no say but it is a crime for that victim ever to mention the conviction.
So, a person who was beaten up by their husband has to endure that person living next door to them when they are released from jail and cannot say to anyone (without committing an offence) that they are petrified of living in the same street. They cannot even disclose their fears to a treating medical practitioner. Ditto for a sex offender. Whilst working for children, disclosures are allowed under the legislation; as we have seen recently in Queensland, sex offenders will game the system. And if you are a victim, you can say nothing!
Any criminal can apply to have their conviction spent (provided they spent no more than 5 years in jail.). Why worry about being caught if you can get your conviction spent. The policy is bad for public safety, accountability and recidivism prevention. It disregards victims’ rights and justice and will be exploited by criminals.
Then let us turn to raising the age of criminal responsibility. Initially it is being raised from 10 to 12 and then in 2027 to 14. We have all seen in the USA that children are capable of committing horrendous crimes through accessing firearms. We see the same here with knives and blunt objects. Worse, this simply encourages adults to use children (just under 14) to be criminal mules. They will invade homes, break into cars, sell drugs and set upon rival gang members with no fear of facing the criminal justice system. All to assist their adult controllers.
We have also had the crime of public drunkenness removed. This was a tool used by police to ensure public safety, including the safety of the drunken person. It was used sensibly. It got what could turn into an ugly situation into a controllable situation, often with the intoxicated person going into a lockup for a few hours and then being released.
We cannot have our streets full of drunken persons, young persons encouraged to commit crimes because of no recourse nor homeless, drug dealers and petty criminals. But this is happening. We can see it every day as you walk through the streets of Melbourne. And those charged with keeping our streets safe are losing the tools to do so.
I finish with the “safe injecting rooms”. This is council and state government policy that has ruined parts of Richmond and will do so in the CBD. It will encourage dealers, street prostitutes and all sorts of criminals to fill our streets. It will discourage people from visiting the CBD and be a disaster for local businesses.
Bad policy delivers bad results. Rather than being soft on crime as our politicians have shown to be, we should have zero tolerance for crime.
In 2018, the full High Court found – “Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging [Gobbo] to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer”.
Of course, they could not do that on their own and needed the support or involvement of Officers of the Court – Lawyers.
The Herald Sun July 27, 2023, pp1, 6-7, refers to a number of Justice figures demanding a review of the decision not to pursue charges in the Lawyer X case and notes that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd, had represented former Chief Commissioner, Simon Overland, in legal proceeding raising concerns about a serious conflict of interest. The calls for a review of the decision are supported by Senior legal officials, including a former Vice President of the Victorian Bar Council.
It should be noted that former High Court Judge, Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, has expressed serious concerns about the decision of Judd not to bring prosecutions.
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc., (CAA), since January 2020, has published several articles on our website relating to the Lawyer X scandal, highly critical of the conduct of Gobbo and senior police involved in this fiasco and calling for those responsible to be held to account. We are in total support of the calls for an independent assessment of the evidence, and if that assessment supports the laying of charges against police or anyone else, demand that this be done expeditiously.
Only then can we, the public, be confident that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
The current status puts perpetrators above the law.
****
Extracts from our articles are set out below with links to full articles.
When Law enforcement becomes law-breaking, there must be accountabilities. The continuing saga of the Lawyer-X criminality by law enforcement appears to be one of the most serious overreaches by serving police personnel in Legal History…
LAWYER X FAILURE TO PROSECUTE – AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE
Once again, we see the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) refusing to act on clear and compelling evidence of the commission of criminal offences.
When the Special Investigator, Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy, recommends prosecutions, one could reasonably think that the evidence of the commission of criminal offences must be clear and compelling…
The continuing saga of the Lawyer-X criminality by law enforcement appears to be one of the most serious overreaches by serving police personnel in Legal History. How can it be that nobody is going to be held accountable?
From the outset, it must be made clear that the CAA does not support the use of lawyer Gobbo by the Victoria Police in the way it was done; it was unlawful, and Gobbo and the executive Police responsible must be held to account before the Law…
Nobel cause corruption’ (the ends justify the means) is as unlawful as the normal interpretation of corruption. It diminishes the role of the Police in our society, as has the behaviours of the Police executive who promoted and or failed to manage the Lawyer X calamity and whose leadership was lacking throughout…
Failing to recognise a loss of objectivity is evident in the Gobbo matter and a damming indictment of the police executives’ lack of competence. The buck, however, stops with the Chief Commissioner and in this protracted affair, no less than four Chief Commissioners failed to resolve or wheel in this train wreck, and each of them took the same Oath to the other Police involved…
Many Victorians were sceptical of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. As the process started, most public sentiment towards the Royal Commission was, it is a waste of time because even if the Police tactics were not kosher with lawyers, the end justified the means.
After all, we are not talking about the pillars of society, but murderers and drug lords being locked up, and that is a good thing, isn’t it?
As many Victorians have watched the evolution of this Commission, attitudes are changing…
****
The community is quickly realising that the old adage, ‘whether you are a prince or pauper, saint or sinner’, we are, and should all be, equal before the Law. Although in Victoria, depending on who you are, that principle is corrupted.
Culpability must also extend to those executives that conspired to cover up the actions of this artifice, whether by use of the legal system or otherwise, that only served to extend and exacerbate the original reprehensible behaviour. In many ways, their behaviour is more reprehensible than the original architects.
They all must have known what was going on. It is fanciful to suggest that authorising or orchestrating a cover-up without knowing what you are covering up beggar’s belief.
It is also bordering on fanciful that lawyers, particularly those who conspired with Victoria Police to hide the Gobbo matters using the Courts, didn’t know what was going on. Remember that lawyers are Officers of the Court, and with that goes obligations that some may well have breached.
Equally, there are no doubt senior Police Officers, many still serving, who were totally cognisant of what was happening and the criminal and moral culpability but chose to support or take no action against the perpetrators and are therefore equally complicit.
The Police’s disgraceful and conscious dismissal of their principles in their oath of office brings great shame on them and all Victoria Police, serving, and who have served – something they will have to live with forever.
The only way to deal with this matter is to purge the culprits and give genuine Police, Lawyers and the community some reason to have confidence in the Legal system by removing this dark shadow.
We can only hope and encourage that the day of reckoning is sooner rather than later.
Youth offending has been brought up again, this time by Chief Commissioner Shane Patton, who calls for exemptions to the impact of lifting the age of criminal responsibility from ten to thirteen.
However, this move from the Chief to fix an unrealistic situation created by the legislators will only complicate managing youth crime, making it more difficult for the police and potentially opening up opportunities for career-ending litigation should any police member break the new rules, even inadvertently.
It will not reduce criminality by this cohort but increase it, putting children and the community at further risk.
The changes rely on perceptions, not facts, and what may seem appropriate to police involved in an incident may well be rejected subsequently by a court. Who incidentally was not there when the incident occurred.
The process will become so complicated that police accoutrements (equipment carried by Police) will need to include a ‘Youth Criminal manual’ for each member to refer to.
“Stop the car chase, while I check the procedure; they may be children.”
The CAA has a long history of advocating for intervention at an earlier age to deter children from committing crimes, the proactive approach. We now accept that because of other factors outside the control of the police, the situation has deteriorated dramatically, and the impact on police resources is so severe by recidivist offenders, particularly in the youth cohort, reactive responses must be the priority until the situation stabilises.
We support and encourage the Chief Commissioner to redirect all proactive and support resources to the front line of youth crime. That includes all special interest groups within VicPol, irrespective of how important the people in these groups feel their work is, as well as suspending all training to free up training staff as well as students.
As the situation continues to deteriorate, a repose similar to a war footing must be adopted.
An influx of hundreds of extra police, their vehicles and other resources will lift dramatically the ability of Police to increase patrols.
This, however, cannot be used as a catalyst for police to absolve the function of Proactive policing permanently and must include a sunset clause.
The operation must have a monthly review of progress and, in the first instance, be for a period of six months.
The blame, however, for that deterioration must be placed squarely at the feet of the Judiciary. But as is often the case, the solution in part relies on the Police.
To succeed, the courts have to do their part, albeit they caused it.
The failure to rein in criminality amongst the youth is also not the fault of the pundit’s favourite whipping horse, their parents. Parents are effectively excluded from the Judicial process even if they are present.
The judiciary must accept the responsibility for the rising crime rate as the reins are in their hands, nobody else’s.
The judiciary is the final arbiter regarding the consequences a juvenile may face. Those consequences must be a consequence in the eyes of the juvenile, not the judiciary.
One thing is blatantly apparent; the youth do not respond well to the current raft of penalty options issued by the courts. The flaw is that the youths do not understand they are being punished; instead, they have been merely inconvenienced by going to court.
As soon as their case is finalised and they walk out of the court, in their minds, they have won, irrespective of what the Court says. They have bragging rights among their peers that they beat the charges, deterrent lost.
Irrespective of what the courts may impose other than detention, they have won.
We are not advocating detention in every case but certainly for recidivists, and the penalty must be realistic.
Young people operate in a different time zone to mature adults hence their tendency to live in the moment, so a detention penalty of a few days the first time, escalating by a few weeks for reoffending, would be the deterrent that will work without creating the hardened criminal that social engineers claim will be the outcome. Operating on youth time is the key.
The habit of governments following ideological whims to remove criticism by pretending they are addressing a problem is fraught with danger, the problem will not go away if the rules are relaxed.
This is a similar approach to the drug epidemic.
It is, however, a disgrace and a terrible indictment imposed on the youth and the victims.
What about the victims of youth actions that will no longer be criminal, but which severely damage the property or rights of these victims? Will the Government compensate victims?
Will victims have access to Victims’ support, given the actions of this group are no longer criminal? Why should innocent victims bear the loss and burden?
Will insurers still honour policies when the damage is not a crime?
For example, a group of eleven-year-olds is actively stealing from shops. Is the shop owner within their rights to physically detain the youths and recover his or her property, with force if necessary? Young offenders know what they are doing is wrong. Irrefutable evidence of this is that they flee when challenged. If they did not know what they were doing was wrong, why would they flee?
Rather than resolving and working pragmatically to address the problem, the government has created a monster that will have unintended and dramatic adverse consequences.
The judiciary that created this problem with the support industries of the social manipulators that have evolved around the court system must be tasked with resolving it.
Rather than working pragmatically to address the problem, the government has created a monster that will have unintended and dramatic consequences.
There is no better demonstration of the many breakdowns of the Legal system than the approach to bail. We regularly hear that perpetrators commit serious offences while on Bail; the idiocy is that these same perpetrators regularly have their original bail extended, but you never hear that the Bail has been forfeited.
The net effect is that Bail does not act as a deterrent, part of its function.
Victim’s rights must be protected. To do otherwise is to condone crime.
If we do not push back against this idiocy and the failure of the courts to accept responsibility for the loss of young lives, ‘ARE WE BARKING MAD OR JUST PLAIN STUPID?’
The apathy of citizens, in general, has always been a problem in every democracy.
There is nowhere that this is more evident than in politics in Victoria.
Governments of every political persuasion have a duty to act ethically, be accountable to the electorate and be competent.
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) has no political affiliations. If the Government of the day is failing to meet the required standards, we will be highly critical regardless of the political party in power, be that Labor, Liberal, Greens or any other Party or Coalition.
This is a fundamental principle in our determination to try to give a voice to the largely unheard people of this State. Those of us who do care.
We certainly have been and will continue to be, highly critical of the current Labor Government led by Premier Daniel Andrews.
Our criticism is not about Labor’s politics but solely about their behaviour.
Examples of incompetence and misconduct abound.
At the top of the list is the 800+ deaths in the Quarantine debacle. The waste of about $1.2 million on the cancellation of the Eastlink Freeway extension. The “Red Shirts Rort”, which saw Labor pay back just under $400,000, the Lawyer X fiasco, “Slug Gate”, and Ministers rorting their travelling allowances, just to name a few.
Politicians ferrying pets or using a Govermremt vehicle for their private business; this type of behaviour is unacceptable.
Every major project undertaken by Labor has cost overruns of not millions but billions of dollars. Victoria’s debt is greater than three other Australian States. Does this seem like a competent Government? Your money, taxpayers.
The North-South Pipeline that cost billions is a classic act of budgetary vandalism and never has been and is not likely to be ever used. Not being prepared to accept the error of this project, we are paying for expensive maintenance – for what benefit? The Desal plant was built at the same time to drought-proof the State, so why a North-South Pipeline was ever a viable or necessary project is seriously questionable.
No Political party has the ticker or competence to accept reality and stop wasting money on maintenance and recycle what is recoverable from the project. If, at some future time, the Pipeline is required, the savings achieved will comfortably pay for the reestablishment. The most expensive part, the pipes, will remain serviceable.
It is strange that none of this seems to resonate with electors.
All of these matters cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually, and yet most of us do nothing.
Apathy reigns supreme.
The CAA implores every voter to get involved and demand the highest standards of behaviour from whichever political party is in power.
Unless this happens, anarchy will remain a grave danger to our democracy.
Premier, time to pick up the phone. Two quick phone calls will resolve the impasse in determining the gult or innocense of individuals involved in the Lawyer -X affair.
A demonstration of leadership.
The calls will not compromise the independence of either party. All that needs to be done is that advice is given for both parties to cooperate in the best interest of the administration of the Law.
Both parties are eminent legal professionals, so a quiet word from you and everything can move on.
The impasse that has evolved between the Director of Prosecutions (DPP) Kerri Judd KC and former High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle, Special prosecutor (OSI) tasked with investigating whether criminal charges should be made against a number of people in the Lawyer-X affair, does not serve our Legal process well.
The issue is over the authority to prosecute, and in our view, the failure to give the Special Prosecutor power to prosecute was a significant failing.
Although we only have access to public information, we are bemused that the issue between the two legal heavyweights has tended to focus on the offence of Misconduct in Public Office. Undoubtedly, this offence could apply to many of the individuals accused.
We are somewhat mystified why the offence of Conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice has perhaps not been pursued, as it very obviously threaded through the whole artifice and would allow the Courts to properly dispense appropriate Justice depending on the roles of the perpetrators responsible for the entire artifice.
The Lawyer-X scandal has spanned many years at an eye-watering cost to the public purse without resolution, and the Special Prosecutor, a recommendation of the Royal Commission, was a positive step to bringing the matter to a conclusion, resolved by the Courts, enabling a line to be drawn under the matter.
The community will be outraged at the expenditure without resolution of these matters by a court. Equally, the potential of the guilty walking free without accounting to a Court for what was described as egregious behaviour is unacceptable at any level.
The community is developing an increasingly jaundiced view of the lack of resolution in matters, particularly where corruption by officials of the State is inferred.
Further, without resolution, the deterrent effect, a critical function of the administration of the Law against repetition in the future, is lost, and the sanctity of Client Lawyer privilege is forever diluted and compromised.
There has been a series of Legal issues allowed to drift into the ether without a proper resolution,
The Red Shirts. Alleged misuse of public monies, which may have involved criminality, that may have unfairly interfered with the electoral process.
The Quarantine fiasco . Allegedly responsible for the deaths of over eighty Victorians during the COVID pandemic.
I-Cooks Foods What seems to be a conspiracy by Public Officers to shut down a private business because it competed in a market space the Government moved into.
Premiers Vehicle crash. Involving a cyclist, many suspicions and contradictions place serious concerns that the truth has not been told, and a cover-up of the facts was embarked upon.
The non-prosecution of politicians. A number of politicians clearly identified as rorting the system of parliamentary allowances, theft by deception. Officials would not hesitate to prosecute this behaviour if it happened outside of the political sphere.
The pattern is now actual, and the uncertainty created by non-resolution runs the risk of the whole Government being known for cover-ups, irrespective of whether there was one. The confidence of the community can become irreparably damaged.
Additionally, the attorney has very scant knowledge of the Legal system and is embarrassingly exposed as a lightweight on legal matters.
The trashing of legal professional privilege is a critical legal principle, and appropriate penalties must be imposed to reduce the likelihood of it ever happening again.
Ordinarily, we would be recommending that the Attorney General intervene; however, according to reports in the Herald Sun on 24th June 2023, Jacklyn Symes MP, our Chief Law Officer, Attorney General (AG), said,
“…it would be wildly inappropriate to give the OSI prosecutorial powers.”
“We have an investigative body; it’s not appropriate for an investigative body to then decide they are the prosecutor as well,” she said.”
This claim by the AG is remarkable in its naivety of the legal process and standard practices operating in our legal system.
Disgraceful from our highest Legal officer.
The AG is wrong in her assertions about prosecutions.
There is a proliferation of organisations within the government system that then have ‘wildly inappropriate powers’ as investigators and prosecutors, including,
Police – Local government – VicRoads – IBAC – Health Department – Energy, Environment and Climate Change Department, and others, – also including some Government authorities.
The reality is that most prosecutions undertaken on the State’s behalf are made by agencies other than the DPP. The AG’s interpretation is breathtakingly mistaken.
The DDP’s role only becomes evident in matters that may end up in a Court higher than the Magistrates Court. The DPP Act give the DPP responsibility to act as the prosecutor in such matters.
Other than a direct presentment, rarely used, accused persons are subject to a Committal hearing, where a Magistrate rules on whether there is a Prima facie case for the accused to answer, a fail-safe part of our Legal system.
We call on the Premier to exercise leadership and either support the proposed Opposition bill on this issue or make a couple of calls to resolve this tiff between two professionals and allow the legal process to proceed.
It would be criminal of itself not to have this matter proceed and the multimillions of dollars invested in this process wasted.
When Law enforcement becomes law-breaking, there must be accountabilities.
The continuing saga of the Lawyer-X criminality by law enforcement appears to be one of the most serious overreaches by serving police personnel in Legal History. How can it be that nobody is going to be held accountable?
As serious as this issue is, the resolution casts a darker pall over the entire legal system and severely damages the cornerstone of its success, community confidence in the legal system.
When the Victorian Government appointed the Special Investigator, former Australian High Court Judge Justice Nettle, there was hope that what he found, would be addressed. The current Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Kerri Judd KC, is reported to be at an impasse with the Special Investigator with regard to the charging of key people in this matter.
Justice Nettle has impeccable credentials, being part of the full Bench of the High Court when it handed down the unanimous decision dealing with Police actions in and around Lawyer X. The Court determined there were ‘Fundamental and Appalling Breachers, of proper police behaviour’; and potential criminality by Police and others in the management of the informer Lawyer-X. After years of delays because, in part, the actions of previous Victoria Police administrations, in retrospect, were clearly designed to protect themselves, not action to facilitate a legal outcome.
It seems that some actions by Victoria Police were in the best interest of the Chief Commissioners of the day and other executive Police. It is not so clear that they served the proper application of the law.
A conflict of interest of mammoth proportions is now apparent.
Decisions by VicPol executives in legal matters seem to have been designed to protect Chief Commissioners who could be facing criminal charges, legal actions which were authorised by those very same Commissioners who may stand accused of unlawful acts. It is possible this protection went further than the Chief Commissioners and included legal entities of that time, some of whom are now sitting Judges.
Is the Government trying to save itself from embarrassment, knowing that if this matter was to go to Court, it would expose those who received promotion or appointments by the Government while their illegal involvement, if any, in the Lawyer-X fiasco was known? The CAA has noted that legal practitioners who represented the Government or its Ministers and Senior Bureaucrats have been regularly promoted to the Bench after their work for the Government.
Interestingly, the media in Western Australia have reported that,
“Nicola Gobbo was prepared to plead guilty to perverting the course of justice and testify against Victorian police officers, including a senior figure in the gang-busting Purana taskforce, over their involvement in a “joint criminal enterprise.”
– WA Today, 21st June 2023.
The offer to plead guilty would only have only one purpose, to mitigate any sentence imposed.
The big concern for some is that once she achieved a benefit for offering to testify against the Police, who else will she then offer to testify against? What other intelligence on the activities of others could be made public to further her advantage?
A leopard doesn’t change its spots; once an informer, always an informer, and Gobbo will use the information (power) she possesses for her own benefit.
Offering to testify against the Police is simply the first card she is dealing with. No doubt she has many more to play.
If the evidence is not there, a committal hearing will determine whether there is a prima facie case. And then it is up to a Judge and jury. A Magistrate may determine that there is no prima facie case and dismiss the matter rather than have it unresolved. We acknowledge that the DPP has the power she has exercised, but that does not make the application of that power right.
The CAA strongly believes that the DPP’s decisions must be questioned as they appear not to be in the public interest. The public can reasonably expect this identified egregious behaviour to be determined by a court. It does not differ from any other heinous crime, and no statute of limitations applies.
Additionally, the argument about lapsed time is disingenuous as the Courts regularly determine the guilt or innocence of accused persons who may have committed offences decades ago, as with some sexual, fraud and capital offences.
The argument over whether there is a likelihood of a conviction in this matter seems somewhat premature as the briefs are not all finished. As is normal practice in complex matters, the DPP has been included in the investigative process; however, deciding before the race is run is problematic.
Running the cost argument is also disingenuous as the multi-million price tag already spent is a complete waste if the matters do not go to Court, particularly when the cost to finalise these matters is probably quite a lot less than was spent getting to this stage.
Even so, the arguments put forward by DPP Judd are tenuous because the broader community needs and is entitled to know the innocence or guilt of the people involved. We note that some continue to hold senior positions.
This is, and should form, the central piece of decisions by Judd as it reflects wholly on the Judicial system and the Police.
Corruption often hides in the shadows. To restore a measure of confidence in the legal system, the DPP must allow light to shine on the allegations. We cannot continue to operate in the dark.
Once again, we see the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) refusing to act on clear and compelling evidence of the commission of criminal offences.
When the Special Investigator, Geoffrey Nettle AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy, recommends prosecutions, one, could reasonably think that the evidence of the commission of criminal offences must be clear and compelling.
That the DPP could conclude that a court would not convict flies in the face of common sense. Surely, given the qualifications of Geoffrey Nettle, a jury should decide guilt or innocence.
How can the DPP be made accountable for such an inexplicable decision?
Why should a long-suffering public not be outraged that perpetrators identified by Nettel do not face the courts?
The actions of Gobbo and, by extension, others, were found by the High Court as ‘Fundamental and appalling breaches‘, yet the DPP is unwilling to put the perpetrators before the Courts.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) calls for the immediate resignation of Kerri Judd KC. Anything less means the State is condoning crime.
The Community Advocacy Alliance CAA has been concerned for some time and repeatedly warned that failing to undertake effective preventative, proactive programs will lead to a worsening youth crime rate.
Our worst fears have been realised.
So concerned about Law enforcement’s direction, the CAA developed a Police Veterans in Schools Program with many Police coming out of retirement as volunteers to deliver the program. But this was thwarted by the then Chief Commissioner Ashton and the impact of COVID.
The current Chief Commissioner who supported a school’s program has been unable to implement it, and we wonder whether there was pushback from the Education Department or Union against the proposal. Or perhaps internal pressure by those Police with a limited mindset only capable of understanding the reactive approach as the role of Policing.
Irrespective, the State still does not have a structured, measurable program that can intervene and reduce crime before it occurs; proactive Policing.
Unfortunately, over two decades ago, the then Police Command withdrew the Force from active involvement in working face-to-face with youth and the community in crime prevention programs. This decision was not based on any empirical data but the opposite and was implemented by an executive that obviously did not understand Policing and functioned on a whim.
Although there is some activity in this space today, it is minuscule, the efficacy is flaky at best, and what does happen now is not structured or measurable.
The programs scrapped or so severely impacted as to make them impotent, were ‘Blue Light Discos’, ‘Police in Schools Involvement Program’, ‘Safety House’, ‘High Ropes’, and ‘Operation Newstart’, all of which were force-wide. While numerous other programs initiated by local Police, such as ‘Backyard Rugby’, ‘Poll Position’, ‘Walk It Like You Talk It’, and many more, actively engaged with youth.
These programs were predominantly driven by the frontline Police acknowledging the problem and providing a solution, a bottom-up approach with the front line Police having ownership of the initiative and, therefore, voluntary commitment.
The Police recognised the importance of schools in these programs and generally involved them and their community, creating a whole of community approach, to the benefit of the children.
What is forgotten is that the growth of youth gangs can only occur where there is a pool of willing youths eager to join. Engaging with the younger youth before they are misdirected, is the only sure way to mitigate the gang culture – cut the supply line.
Ironically many of these programs initiated and developed in Victoria and then scrapped continue very successfully in other States and overseas, where the value of these programs is universally accepted as an essential part of effective Policing.
Victoria Police have been forced to adopt a more reactive, risk-averse policing model.
The current Chief Commissioner, Patton, is attempting to return to a community policing model, but unfortunately, it is like trying to turn the Titanic. And like the Titanic, these attempts have failed, and the inevitable outcome is where we are today.
In well over a decade, there has been a huge turnover in police numbers, and consequently, many newer police officers know nothing but a reactive policing model, with proactive policing an anathema to most.
We are paying a heavy price with substantial Police resources heavily committed reactively to the youth issue. This is at the cost of servicing the myriad of other societal problems that befall a community. The most obvious is Domestic Violence and the Road Toll.
The result is already being felt, with a marked decline in effective crime prevention, impacting all facets of our lives. Increased incidents of Domestic Violence and a soaring Road Toll.
Fear of crime can be the worst form of oppression for any community.
Having identified failings within Policing, the real elephant in the room seems to avoid scrutiny.
Hiding in full sight is the Judiciary.
While the focus, to a degree, is unfairly levelled at the Police, it is unfair for the Police to shoulder all the blame when it is the Courts that bear the ultimate and the lion’s share of responsibility for the situation we now face.
Police arrest and charge perpetrators, but it is the Courts that determine the penalty upon conviction and must take responsibility for the outcomes of each sentence imposed.
The responsibility for charging perpetrators lies with the police, while the courts determine whether they become recidivists.
However, the legal system in Victoria seems to be a combination of different approaches that claim to be innovative but lack any accountability. The introduction of Restorative Justice in the past decade has caused significant harm to the legal system. This process has reduced the accountability of perpetrators for their crimes and, in some cases, has shifted the blame to the victim. For instance, in cases where the victim left a window open, the perpetrator climbing in and stealing property was seen as less serious, thereby reducing the criminal’s culpability. This is absurd.
In all of the nonsensical initiatives or interpretations that followed the lauded Restorative Justice initiative, the Courts lost perspective of what they were there for and any semblance that the Courts bore any responsibility for the crime rate, is successfully disguised.
Our Court system has so deteriorated that perpetrators can be bailed multiple times, have multiple court appearances, and the Courts simply find excuses to allow the perpetrators to return to the community to offend again.
The oft-hackneyed phrase, ‘incarcerating perpetrators only makes them worse’ -is arrant nonsense because the rhetorical question that must follow is, ‘worse than what?’.
Perpetrators who are recidivists are ‘worse’ back on the streets, particularly young ones who need to be protected from themselves as much as the community needs to be protected from them.
Any notion that the Courts have an obligation to the Victim or society more generally has evaporated. The Courts have been totally encapsulated in the notion that the offender needs all the considerations, and somehow being nice to them will solve the problem.
We suggest that the problem is, that most juvenile offenders who are at the lower end of the IQ Scale see anything other than incarceration as beating the offence.
In reality, most offenders scoff at the lenient sentencing as nothing more than an inconvenience, as the Governments own statistics reveal.
Reoffending by children and young people in Victoria found that in Victoria, young people aged 10 to 14 years have the highest reoffending rates of all ages in the criminal justice system, with more than 80 per cent reoffending at some time, and more than 60 per cent reoffending with an offence against the person (Aggravated Burglaries).
The Judiciary has clearly failed in its duty. Generally, it passes off the responsibility for this shocking State of affairs to the ‘Juvenile Justice system or Police, but it is the Judicial officers who are the ones who determine the outcomes, not some bureaucrat working in the Department or a police member trying to attend more calls than the available time their shift allows.
All the browbeating is worth naught until the Judiciary starts regularly incarcerating offenders rather than issuing continued warnings, introducing consequences, a novel approach to reducing crime.
It’s important to understand that detaining juvenile offenders for a brief period can actually be beneficial in breaking their behavioural patterns. This point is often overlooked by those who are against incarcerating minors.
A child lives in the moment, and time relative to them differs greatly from that of an adult.
Many within the Judiciary avoid the hard decisions, and until we insist on accountability and the compilation of useful statistics where the performance of a Judicial Officer can be measured, nothing is likely to change.
What value is a Judicial officer’s service to society when their decisions translate into a very high recidivism rate amongst perpetrators who are convicted in their Court?
We need to shift the focus of the Courts to their proper role of reducing crime.
Without the Courts doing their job, the Police cannot do theirs, and we all suffer as Police are committed to the recidivist gangs rather than other important issues.
And the future? Courts will continue to allow perpetrators to avoid responsibility for their crimes, and Police will be faced with ever-increasing demands for increased police numbers to deal with exponential demand for the reactive function, at a huge cost to the State that you and I pay for.
We desperately need a brave Government intervention and a circuit breaker to the spiralling downward trend of Law and order in Victoria.
Without intervention in the Courts current philosophical disposition, criminals will ultimately face far less punitive outcomes for their activity and coupled with the moves to decriminalise the Drug issue and raise the age of criminal responsibility, you can see where it is headed – and it is not good.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) is a group of retired police officers and concerned citizens who are committed to making Victoria a safer place.
Recently, CAA obtained statistics from Victoria Police regarding calls made to 000 reporting erratic driving or suspected DUIs. Dr. Ray Shuey, a former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and a member of CAA, submitted the application for the data, which cost $440.00 and covers the years 2020 to 2022.
The data shows that in 2022, concerned community members made over 51,000 calls 000 about problematic road users. However, in 88.61% of these cases, the only response was a “Keep A Look Out” (KALOF) broadcast, with no further investigation being undertaken. Only 7.18% of cases were recorded as “enquiries pending,” but there was no follow-up on the outcomes of these enquiries. Only about 1,000 calls resulted in any real action, such as an offence detected, an offender apprehended, or a stolen car located, resulting in a success rate of approximately 2.21%.
Clearly, the community wants to make our roads safer, but the Victoria Police response is woefully inadequate. This issue was first raised within Victoria Police in December 2011 and again in June 2013 but little has changed in the intervening decade.
At the time of the 2011 report examples were cited where the only response would have been to Keep A Look Out For, but for further intervention. No doubt every reader would be able to recount their own similar experiences:
2 x vehicles seen “dragging” along Ferntree Gully Road Glen Waverley, registration number of both vehicles provided. No vehicle available to attend, disposition recorded as AAC (All Apparently Correct). Analysis of LEAP data indicated that the probable driver of one vehicle currently had 19 demerit points and had recent criminal convictions for serious offences. His Dossier stated, “The subject person is into high performance drag cars. Currently doing up a LH Torana for street drags.” Contacted caller who stated she was a nurse at the xxxx Hospital and constantly saw people in emergency who had been involved in vehicle collisions. Stated she got her friend, who was a passenger in the car at the time, to ring 000 as she feared for the safety of other road users. Both prepared to make statements and attend court if required.
Vehicle observed driving dangerously on the Monash Freeway towards the city, correct registration number provided. 251 directed KALOF. Contacted 251 and requested that a unit be directed to investigate. 251 replied in email a short time later that the registered owner and the reporting person had both been contacted. The registered owner stated that the vehicle was being driven by her granddaughter. A further check revealed the granddaughter has numerous prior convictions associated with drug use. The reporting person provided additional details of the extent of the dangerous driving and stated she was prepared to make a statement.
Vehicle seen at 1100hrs in Chapel Street, Prahran, several callers reported the vehicle had driven through 2 red lights and overtaken a tram on the incorrect side of the road. Correct registration number provided. Units directed by 251 to locate vehicle, unable to locate, no further action taken. Checked LEAP, noted on registration pre-enquirer that at 1330hrs on the same day a member from Melbourne Highway Patrol had checked the vehicle. Contacted member who stated that the vehicle had been involved in a serious collision and the driver was taken to hospital. Stated witnesses had seen the vehicle travelling along St Kilda Road and overtake a tram and then collide with a tram stop. Driver possibly drug impaired or psychiatric issues. He had not been aware of the earlier incidents as they were on a different radio channel.
Another tragic example was cited in the 2013 report which had played out with tragic consequences with the death of a 70-year-old female driver. A drug affected driver was convicted of culpable driving. In a 10 day period before the fatal collision a number of calls were made to 000 reporting the driver. In sentencing the Judge made comment that despite numerous calls to police no immediate action was taken. Any of the incidents reported to police could have amounted to Reckless Conduct Endangering Life or Serious Injury, in which case it would have been open to Victoria Police members to arrest and bail the offender with conditions, thus providing an immediate response within existing legislative processes.
As pointed out in the 2011 and 2013 reports clearly the consequences of failing to adequately address this issue are serious, including preventable serious road trauma caused by these drivers, further serious driving offences being committed, disqualified or unlicensed drivers remaining undetected, and damage to the reputation of Victoria Police. Additionally, failing to address this issue means missed opportunities to reduce the road toll, raise perceptions of safety, identify and target recidivist offenders, target individuals who pose a heightened risk to community safety and increase confidence in policing.
An effective solution would be to properly investigate these calls, which are often supported by mobile phone or dashcam footage and/or other witnesses. If a caller did not want to provide a statement due to a relatively remote possibility of having to give evidence in court, a letter could be sent to the registered owner advising that their vehicle had been observed being driven dangerously, and on this occasion, no further action would be taken, but the incident had been noted. This would alert the registered owner that others had seen what had occurred and prompt them to reflect on their driver behaviour or who they authorized to drive their car. There would be a provision for a registered owner to query the event, but the identity of the person providing the information would be protected.
CAA has recently had discussions with Victoria Police about how to progress an effective solution to this unacceptable situation. It will likely require additional resources, but it is worth it for a safer Victoria.
It is up to the Police command to manage and prioritize existing resources, work with communities, share data, and make a transparent, cogent case for additional resources. This follows the an evidence-based policing approach in keeping with a Prevention and Community Empowered (PACE) policing model. The public wants to make our roads safer, and it’s time for Victoria Police to take a more effective approach to investigating calls to 000 regarding erratic driving.
There has been talk of introducing Drug Buses in Victoria, which is an interesting concept with potential benefits.
With the introduction of buses for addicts to shoot up in ‘safety’ currently under consideration, the North Richmond facility can be closed, relieving the residents of North Richmond of the tedium and fear of dealing with the facility in their midst and the effect of normalising drug activity with Primary School age children in the adjacent school.
But before this concept gets too much traction, and Victoria rockets down the road to decriminalisation, the Canadian approach to the Drug issue must be examined because there are direct comparisons between the Canadian States which give a true insight, with some opting for the path to decriminalisation and some opting for a solution rather than a band-aid.
The stark failure of the decriminalisation approach, a direction Victoria is heading, has been laid bare in a YouTube video (see below link) that is essential viewing.
The unintended consequence of decimalisation has seen a crime rate rise of 400% in one area, and the situation where nothing can be done if an addict decides to smoke crack in a restaurant; it is legal. But patrons who smoke cigarettes in a restaurant can be fined because it is illegal.
Another interesting development in Canada has been the marketing initiatives adopted by Drug dealers. This mobile drug store was recently seen on Canadian streets in a decriminalised State.
With the drug buses and a mobile Drug store that will be an interesting quinella in the decriminalisation path,
Drug-injecting buses may end up in your local MacDonalds car park parked next to a Mobile Drug Store.
There are concerns that the same people who chose to locate the Richmond facility in a residential area near a Primary School may also make poor decisions about where to park these buses.
The argument for Drug Buses is to save lives, but most people believe treating drug addiction is a better way to help addicts.
While it’s possible to save a drug addict today, in an injecting facility, they may still die tomorrow. Their health risk has not been mitigated.
Therefore, the focus should be on getting addicts into treatment and off drugs to prevent overdoses in the future.
We know that Drug addicts do not respond to advice while under the influence of drugs, so the only option is to create a circumstance where they may be secured with a Health Order for treatment as proposed by the CAA in 2018.
The legislation already exists – The Victorian Severe Substance Dependence Treatment Act 2010 and could be implemented almost immediately with minor amendments.
The drug approach in a number of Canadian States seriously addresses the Drug issue to save lives by addressing addiction which is both the drugs and the drug lifestyle and any other health issues contributing to their addiction.
A Canadian-produced YouTube is, without doubt, the best insight into the drug issue yet and must be compulsory viewing by all politicians and decision-makers.
Those involved in any aspect of the Drug issue and think they know it all should view this on YouTube.
There is no argument, based on fact, that we are winning the war on drugs. But, if winning or losing was adjudged, we are losing and being smashed.
The benefit of the millions of dollars applied to the supply side of the illicit drug trade can only be described as relatively ineffective on any cost-benefit analysis. Equally, there is no effective broad-based proactive strategy to address the issue of users, the demand side.
Huge drug busts should not be the measure of success for law enforcement because, at best, it causes some disruption. But, as one commentator quipped recently, syndicates allow in their business model for law enforcement to have some success and be ripped off by other criminals. Still, the vast profits make this risk worthwhile.
We do not suggest targeting criminal importation of illicit drugs be rewound. However, to make the war on drugs deliver some impact on the illegal trade, we need to attack not only the product but the hearts and minds of users and potential users, and that is the demand side of the equation.
With reduced demand, the supply will ultimately shrink after initially creating an increased oversupply. As a result, the oversupplied product is harder to offload, forcing prices down, and the level of crime to maintain a habit fades.
Although we are not naive enough to suggest a strategy addressing the demand side would eliminate the drug trade, it will not, but combined with the attacks on the supply side, it is likely to markedly reduce the number of users and, to a degree, mitigate the problem The mitigation will be in direct proportion to the application of strategies aimed at the demand side.
Most current resources applied to the demand side are generally targeted at those entering or about to enter the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that there is any effective intervention before this. When users enter the Justice system, the chances of an effective diversion are severely diminished; it is too late for many.
The CAA believes that a strategy that involves early intervention is far more likely to be effective than waiting for the problem to manifest substantially.
The strategy.
We have come to accept that Quarantine is a very effective way to control contagions in the community. Illicit drugs arguably kill more Australians than during the COVID Pandemic. We accept Quarantine for that lesser evil, so why not apply the same principles to Illicit Drugs, creating drug Quarantine facilities?
Populating a drug quarantine facility.
Anybody suspected of being under the influence or adjudged by Police or a medical practitioner on reasonable grounds to have ingested illicit drugs and a drug test on-site returns a positive, these people can, by Health Order, be immediately placed in Quarantine.
What might a Drug quarantine facility look like?
A secure place where users can be medically assessed and held on a Health Order for up to fourteen days while they are evaluated and their health adjusted before being released back into society or the legal system.
The first function of the facility is to conduct a clinical assessment to confirm the presence of illicit drugs. A person found not to be under the influence of drugs must be immediately released from the facility after advising the Police if other Judicial obligations exist.
During this period, experts can work with the person to guide them to deal with dependency or other health issues. They can access support if required and have them return to society in a better condition than they were, armed with how to escape their addiction and/or lifestyle changes to remove the necessity of drugs before becoming addicted.
Taking drug-affected people away from Hospital Emergency Rooms and off the streets must be one of the great positives of this strategy.
We would argue that there is no reasonable opportunity for clinicians or others working in the shooting gallery environment to have any user interaction with the addicts. Because there are none, the shooting gallery, falsely labelled a safe injecting room, is a drug facilitation facility.
Users arrive desperate for their fix and leave on a high, so the argument that prevention work is carried out is a myth. That is why the most important statistic that these facilities will not publish is the number of addicts diverted from their addiction.
An addict or drug user in Quarantine would be absolutely focused on clinicians making medical intervention far more effective because of the nature of the facility.
What of the mechanics of this proposal?
A Drug Quarantine facility will need to be as secure as any other Quarantine facility with some added safeguards specific to the purpose.
The concept is to have strong security by a suitable agency and inside managed by Health professionals.
A drug-affected person who has allegedly committed a serious crime and is under the influence of drugs when arrested can be sent to the facility and be transferred back to the criminal justice system on the expiration of the fourteen days for Justice processing.
It would be reasonable to presume that an alleged perpetrator will be much better able to deal with any criminal matters being as healthy as can be achieved in fourteen days.
Where will they be located?
Drug quarantine facilities can be housed in the now redundant properties and buildings secured for the COVID pandemic. Repurposing these resources would be sensible and supported by all Victorians. The attraction of this approach would give Victoria a resource never before enjoyed should a wide-ranging pandemic ever eventuate in the future. The Drug quarantine facilities can be repurposed back for the duration of any new challenges. Short-term interruptions to the Drug service would have little meaningful impact on the Drug patient as their stay in the facilities are only short-term.
What benefits of this approach?
There would be a number of positives cascading from this initiative; we have listed a few.
The significant and first impact will be on reducing drivers on our roads that use drugs and the lives saved. The effect community-wide will be almost immediate, and the deterrent effect profound.
Illicit drugs impact domestic violence, and removing a drug-affected perpetrator from a violent domestic situation is a very positive capability that can also save lives.
Drug users, particularly in their early foray into the scene, will be discouraged from further involvement.
The drug scene will be driven underground, a real positive, to keep it away from our kids. Anything that makes drugs more difficult to obtain is a positive, as necessary as being socially derided.
An addict may find that returning to the quarantine process as a repeat user may be the catalyst to encourage the person to seek a way out from their addiction, creating the motivation necessary to break the addiction.
The stigma attached to the Quarantine facility will also be a substantial deterrent to would-be users. But, on the other hand, time out in the facility may be the early intervention that stops the cycle of rampant addiction.
It is unlikely that Police would proceed with any criminal matters on the lower end of the criminal scale on users quarantined, exercising discretion and preventing many from entering the Justice system, consequently reducing court caseloads.
Importantly, the maintenance and access to quality data for research purposes would start to achieve data that can be relied upon as the depth and demographic associated with the problem become evident to allow the development of more targeted approaches.
Why will Quarantine work?
Will Quarantine move all away from drugs? No, but the impact on their health and giving them a hiatus in their lifestyle might just have the desired effect for many. After fourteen days, they will have lost their position in the drug empire, so they will have to start again. Disruption can sometimes be more effective than the current options and should never be underestimated as a counter to an illegal problem.
Identifying and removing trigger points for addicts over fourteen days would act as step one to recovery, and with the trigger points identified, it can be the start of a way out.
Rehabilitation
We accept the arguments for rehabilitation and the lack of resources available to addicts; there does need to be an increase in these resources; however, pouring buckets of money into the rehabilitation of addicts will not solve the problem per se. The nirvana of a rehab centre on every corner would add to the problem, not diminish it, with the same impact as safe injecting rooms. They both play as a positive in the drug Marketing mix, not a negative, as should be the case.
The consequences of no action
The community is only too aware that community leaders’ efforts to manage the drug issue have failed abysmally. There are no forward-thinking strategies that we know of, to overcome, or at the very least, achieve a reduction in the problem.
More Safe Injecting Rooms means more addicts and growth in the drug industry.
Make no mistake, the explosion of Safe Injecting Rooms is seen as a pathway by some towards the legalisation of Illicit drugs; it is merely step one.
Separation of legal and health issues.
We must accept that while illicit drugs are a legal issue, addiction is a health one, and the separation needs to be understood.
Incarceration within the Justice system and given the innate ability of individuals to be innovative to satisfy human needs (including needs not listed in Maslow’s theory), we are not particularly confident that being in jail will necessarily mean no access to drugs.
While we strongly advocate the health aspect as essential to address, the criminal aspect must not be ignored.
Drug addicts do not commit a crime in some involuntary state, they may have strong urges to satisfy their addiction, but the offence is only the method to access the drugs. They are entirely cognisant that their actions are criminal. Often the crimes require planning, and that is not the actions of an addict in some involuntary state.
As we separate the health and the crime issues, the courts must separate the addiction from the offence.
If a person commits a crime to service an addiction, the addiction should be irrelevant to any penalty. Deriving some benefit to penalty before the Courts because of an addiction to an illegal substance is in our view, objectionable.
Legalising/ decriminalisation of illicit Drugs
That is the holy grail for the drug industry and all the drug apologists who generally imbibe but do not want the hassle of potential criminal sanctions.
This is particularly an attitude amongst many elites who enjoy risk-taking but hold down very responsible executive positions.
Make no mistake, we are on the path to Legalising Illicit drugs. The strategy of creeping assumptions is well developed, with the end game not far away.
It started with the safe injecting Rooms. The legalisation of prostitution and now working groups looking at the of legalising drugs. We know what they will find and there will be little doubt that attempts to ram through legislation on this matter is nigh.
The working groups are looking at the how-to, not the why.
It’s not just Quarantine as the solution.
A Quarantine program is but one part of the strategy; the other is public awareness campaigns. The Quit campaign that altered community standards is a standout, but in this case, targeting the young to make drugs socially unacceptable in that cohort would be imperative. Take the ‘Cool‘ out of drugs.
Recent research suggests thirty lives per year, plus countless injuries, involve drug-affected drivers.
The acting Police Minster Ben Carroll, referring to drugged drivers, was recently quoted as saying, “Any measure on our roads to save lives is worth taking”, and he is absolutely right. However, we need a new direction because what has been done to date has been a failure.
It is common knowledge amongst particularly young drivers that consuming alcohol and driving is too risky, but party drugs are undetectable (the integrity of this statement is questionable, in fact). So, they use drugs in lieu of alcohol with all the added risks—particularly the long-lasting effect of days, not hours.
The prospect of 14 days of Quarantine if a driver is detected with drugs would dramatically reduce the Drug Driver problem overnight.
What of the other issues?
This paper does not address the myriad of detail required to implement this proposal but proposes a concept that can be developed into reality in a relatively short time frame.
The quarantine approach to Illicit drugs is new and innovative and, most importantly, infinitely measurable.
Victoria can become a world leader in this field by applying a commitment towards a solution for the illicit drug problem.
It is convenient that the government has two options currently available to implement the program by repurposing two Government facilities, the Quarantine facility at Mickleham and the Yooralla Building in the CBD.
Repurposing both facilities would receive strong community support and have almost an immediate impact.
Upper House Nick McGowen’s comments regarding drivers using headlights during the day caught my attention recently. HS 1st of June 2023, A Bright Idea.
In the 1970s, while stationed at Seymour Highway Patrol, I often found myself from time to time, losing sight of oncoming vehicles or those waiting to turn onto the highway. All be it for a slit second, but long enough for it to be potentially dangerous, particularly at dawn, dusk, and variable weather conditions. This was especially dangerous for catching-speeding motorists, as high-speed driving was commonplace, and that facilitated constant high-speed driving for enforcement.
I was ridiculed by my superiors when I suggested that drivers should use their parking lights while driving. I was even directed not to use them in police vehicles.
Interestingly, I could not find any regulation that prohibited driving with headlights during the day.
MP Nick McGowan’s proposal to require all drivers to activate their headlights during the day is a sensible measure that should be supported by all politicians. This simple initiative can significantly improve visibility on the country as well as metropolitan roads, particularly in areas with shadows and variable conditions. However, drivers of vehicles without daytime running lights should be required to use their parking lights.
Aftermarket daytime driving lights are available for less than $100 and are easy to install without the need for a specialist auto electrical service. Therefore, it is reasonable to require vehicles that need a Certificate of Roadworthiness to be fitted with these lights.
While I support this initiative wholeheartedly, it saddens me that it could have saved hundreds of Victorian lives if it had been introduced in the 70s.
The lesson here is that our legislators should not dismiss ideas simply because they cannot see their value; sometimes, the visions of others are critical.
In the Herald Sun of 25/05/2023, there is an article referring to the charging of a former Police Sergeant, Mark Sims, with Misconduct in Public Office and other offences for writing a message on a whiteboard at Kyneton Police Station in November 2020, “beware of the rats”.
Ultimately the charge of Misconduct in Public Office was withdrawn, and the only remaining charge was dealt with when Sims admitted to a single charge of causing disaffection among police officers.
While in no way condoning the actions of Sims, the fact of Sims being charged with Misconduct in Public Office is a cause for concern.
Over the past eight years, the Community Advocacy Alliance Inc.(CAA) has continually referred to actions of members of the Government that, in our view, clearly constitute Misconduct in Public Office only to hear that this offence was too difficult to prove for charges to be laid.
If writing “beware of the rats” on a police station whiteboard was considered sufficiently serious for the laying of a Misconduct in Public Offence charge, how is it that no politician has been similarly charged?
Incidents warranting such a charge range from the notorious Red Shirts Rort to the treatment of Ian Cook and ICook Foods, with many instances in between. In particular, the issue surrounding the Quarantine debacle, which allegedly resulted in the death of over eight hundred people. Nobody was held accountable, let alone charged with any offence.
Clearly, double standards are being applied. Those authorities who have repeatedly failed in their duty to the public to hold politicians and Public Officers to account should themselves be considered to have committed Misconduct in Public Office.
For how long are we expected to tolerate these double standards?
Recently The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) emailed a letter to you relating to the North Richmond, so called, Safe Injecting Room pointing out the utterly inappropriate siting of such a facility. We requested you to use your power to prevent the continuing sacrificing of the physical and psychological health of children who live near that facility and who attend the nearby school.
A majority of you opted to ignore our plea and have passed legislation ensuring that the well-being of children will continue to be sacrificed to the needs of drug addicts. For this, those who voted to pass this legislation ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
The CAA implores you to reconsider this barbarous act and repeal this cruel legislation, and, if such a facility is to be continued, choose a site where children and local residents are not so adversely impacted on a daily basis.
Would you have your children, if any, raised next to an Injecting Room? If you answer honestly, your answer would be a resounding no.
If you voted against the permanent continuance of the Injecting Room at the North Richmond site, we congratulate you. If you voted for the continuance, we utterly deplore your inhumanity in continuing to sacrifice children in 2023 and beyond.
The CAA will continue to do all it can to protect the rights of affected children and local residents.
(It should be noted the CAA has proposed a much better health related approach to dealing with drug addiction.)
What a brilliant idea; why didn’t we think of this earlier?
Kids desensitised to and normalised to drugs, by the drug room just opposite their school in Nth Richmond, and the playgound to dangerous to use, will be able to call in and get a hit on the way home.
Mum can wait outside the injecting room rather than at the school gate.
It took the Green’s Aiv Puglielli to come up with this ridiculous and inane idea. He claims to have ‘expert health advice’. We note that it is not necessarily ‘Medical Advice’; it is more likely that advice would have originated from the drug industry to expand their market.
Mr Puglielli should have stuck to the Arts, where he has a background and left these issues to people that know something about it.
We would question the bona fides of the Greens’ advisers, and you can guarantee they will never raise their heads above the parapet to expose themselves to deserved ridicule.
How ridiculous to even suggest that a child can attend a drug room to shoot up. Is it to be an after-school activity, or will it be introduced as part of the curriculum?
Under this proposal, the Doctors’ Hippocratic Oath would be invoked, and the identity of the child would not be disclosed even to the child’s parents.
If these loopy ideas gain any traction, they will turn our parliamentary system into a joke, and what remaining credibility the parliament has will be lost, a loss it may never recover from.
We have long suspected that some drug apologists are linked to the drug trade and have been corrupted to push pro-drug policies. The rivers of gold that flow in the industry leads inevitably to corruption.
If there is any hope, politicians, irrespective of their ideology, must rise up and call this rubbish for what it is.
This is one of the very few occasions where politicians must put aside ideology for the greater good and regain respect for the political institution.
The State Government appears to be on the fringe of introducing a “safe” drug injecting room (“drug house”) in the CBD. Originally proposed next to Victoria Market (initially supported by Lord Mayor Sally Capp) and now apparently proposed at or near Flinders Street Station. If this occurs, it will become the greatest folly the MCC has introduced to the CBD. An own goal that could ruin the CBD for decades. Indeed the term “safe” in the context of drugs is an oxymoron. Illegal drugs are not safe! The place where you take them may be safe, but that is all. Taking illicit drugs is unsafe (otherwise make them legal), the environment around the place where the user takes them is unsafe… as a result of drug dealers (who will come to sell drugs to the users), criminals of various types hanging around to steal from the users, residents and dealers, the consequential health issues attached to the user and the consequential behaviour of the user which is often threatening to bystanders and emergency services who inevitably have to look after them.
The model for this drug house is one now operating in Richmond. Readers should note on its website: “Once registration and assessment are complete…They wash their hands, are provided with sterile injecting equipment and are given harm reduction advice before they inject their pre-obtained drugs in an allocated booth.” What an invitation for drug dealers to hang around and sell their wares! Users get their drugs elsewhere and where better from next to where you inject. One of the arguments for establishing the drug house is that it saves lives. Rubbish! But there have still been almost 7000 drug-related deaths since being established. Criminals hang out around the centre, break-ins to local residences have increased, and prostitutes are plying their trade in the nearby parks and streets.
The Richmond Drug Centre is attached to a community health centre next to a primary school. Residents nearby have complained of rising drug use and crime. This paper has recently highlighted residents’ concerns which have been brushed over.
The MCC and the State have sat on a report by former Chief Commissioner of Police Ken Ley for many months that apparently supports a drug house. This report appears to have been withheld by the Lord Mayor and Councillors prior to last year’s State election. Why? We do not know. But if it exists, the public and ratepayers have a right to see it. Businesses (especially those near the proposed drug house, need to prepare and not be ill-informed should they need to make decisions about improvements, renewing a lease or buying a property.
Drug use is a major social issue, and that users need to be looked after is not the issue. The issue is how you deal with it, and the only way to do so responsibly is through an integrated drug user strategy. One that treats the user’s immediate health issues sets up a rehabilitation treatment program and gets them off the streets and into safe accommodation. This should be a state lead initiative that has been wanting for decades. It is tough love, but in the end, best for the user and the overall community.
The Community Advocacy Alliance, made up of respected police veterans, says: “Injecting Rooms are neither safe for the addicts nor the community, no matter where you put them, as they do not even rate as a band-aid to the issue. It is even questionable that they save lives.”
They go on to say: “The CAA believes the solution will be based on proactive intervention, law enforcement (not passive avoidance) along with appropriate rehabilitative infrastructure.
The use of Health Orders to place addicts or users in a secure medical facility so that their overall health can be attended to…is the key.”
This is common sense, and the MCC will lead Melbourne into a social and economic abyss if it continues to proceed with setting up a drug house in the CBD. Melbourne contributes a substantial proportion of the nation’s GDP. It serves as a gateway for international trade and investment. Allowing a drug house and the associated criminal activity in the CBD will:
deter businesses and individuals from investing in and locating to the CBD. It will indeed lead to businesses leaving the CBD
Impact the quality of life of residents in the city and deter shoppers and the broader community from coming into the city.
Damage Melbourne’s international reputation and image. This will impact our major events and tourists coming to the city
Lead to a long-term decline in economic activity and a reduction in job opportunities.
Finally, I ask, do any of us want our children or grandchildren to become inured to homelessness, drug addiction, crime and public sex acts?
This is what will happen on our streets if we do not act now to stop it.
It is now inevitable that the argument from the illicit drug apologists will gain sway; you could soon have your own local injecting den with all the outfall the residents of North Richmond have and continue to endure in your neighbourhood.
The Drug problem escalates exponentially because no action is being taken to address it, only to facilitate its growth. More injecting rooms increase drug use leading to more overdoses and more crime to support the habits created, not less.
We believe that due to the latest review of the North Richmond facility, some startling numbers were released that can be used in a spurious argument to expand the project.
And as though the on-ground reality has no bearing on the philosophical and political intent to expand injecting rooms, for the convenience of addicts and users at the expense of the community.
The most generous thing that can be said of the Richmond facility review is that there is no evidence that addicts and users are treated or are released from their addiction at all, and the report even admits that the sixty-odd alleged addicts whose lives were saved because of the room is at best an inflated estimate. They just don’t know the effectiveness.
However, what is not beyond doubt is the facility promotes and facilitates drug use and, moreover, provides a convenient location for dealers to operate.
The City of Yarra has been collecting discarded syringes around the neighbourhood adjacent to the Drug facility. Before the Pandemic, they collected 8,000 per month or 260 per day.
After the Pandemic, that number has skyrocketed to 18,000 a month or 600 daily. This is unequivocal evidence that supports the Richmond resident’s claims of an explosion of drug use around the facility and absolutely debunks any claim the facility reduces harm by reducing drug use.
These numbers do not include the number of syringes dispensed and used within the facility.
What this figure does, is open the window to the extent of the problem with drug addiction that the community of North Richmond is dealing with.
At least 600 or 25 every hour, 24/7 addicts, are shooting up in their neighbourhood, plus the addicts transiting to shoot in the facility; this is truly a pandemic.
We oppose the concept of a safe Injecting room in absolute terms but accept without question that addiction is a medical issue.
Sourcing illicit drugs by addicts and associated unlawful behaviours is unquestionably a Police matter.
It is irrefutable that addicts cannot maintain a severe addiction without resorting to crime, and one of the most prolific crimes is drug dealing. So why wouldn’t they congregate in Richmond, where there is little risk of being charged with dealing?
The current drug honey pot, courtesy of the Victorian Government, an area where drug dealing can occur with minimal risk of prosecution, is unacceptable.
The safe injecting room is an abject failure for the community of North Richmond and Victoria generally.
Using the syringe statistics has a danger of creating a perceived need to replicate these facilities throughout the country and metropolitan community—a need not for the community but for the addicts.
As we have argued before, the current approach to the drug issue supports the drug industry, contrary to what is claimed. The Marketing model for that industry is well-serviced by Government strategies in support of their trade.
The risk to all Victorians is that the Richmond Model is replicated elsewhere.
That model uses the community health centres as their operational base.
Community Health centres are attractive because of their medical resources beyond the supervision of drug use.
We all must be vigilant against the spread of these insidious drug facilitator programs in lieu of the introduction of a quarantine system for addicts.
You will never get an addict to action rehabilitation when high, as in the injecting rooms.
To be effective, the addict must be sober when help is offered to have any chance of acquiescing.
The Community Advocacy Alliance has been restrained in our criticism of the Premier of this State as we respect the democratic process. Still, there comes a time, issues and place where we can no longer remain silent because we would be failing to advocate for the Community.
The Community has every right to expect that our elected officials act lawfully and ethically, delivering the services, infrastructure and good governance the Community expects.
The political machinations orbiting around the latest IBAC findings involving the Premier are just a bridge too far. We need as a community to stand up and be vocal, holding him to account.
We accept that the IBAC Act restricts the ability of IBAC to lay charges against certain people based on the nature of the alleged misbehaviour, noting that similar behaviour by anybody else would not be tolerated. However, given what has been reported in the media on the IBAC, raises severe doubts about the competency of our Legal system to deal with corruption or criminal endeavours.
Although IBAC cannot lay criminal charges in these circumstances, that does not mean there has not been criminal behaviour. There is no absolution of the Premier in the IBAC reports.
Given the information in the public domain, two alleged offences would have a very good prospect of succeeding, and, depending on the Premier’s advice, a third offence and the most serious would apply.
Primarily multiple counts of Misconduct in Public Office seem to be the most prolific offence, and it is arguable the Premier and others have engaged in multiple Conspiracies to commit other criminal offences-most notably, Theft by Deception from the State.
The most recent exposure of the movement of funds to the HSU needs further investigation to see where all the funds ended up and with whom, and was that purpose even legal? Just because the money was moved within the government and union sphere does not necessarily mitigate theft.
The Premier’s behaviour over an extended period of memory malfunctions is also highly questionable because if it is deliberate, it is undoubtedly Perjury when he is speaking under oath and Misconduct in Public Office at other times.
He has repeatedly used memory lapses when questioned under oath.
And there is also the matter of the notes.
Are we to believe that with a posse of advisers, the Premier does not have access to logs or notes, contemporaneous or otherwise and audio recordings of the important decisions he is involved in?
Are we to believe that the Premier is so unprofessional he operates on a wing and a prayer and has no reference material on his conversations on critical matters of State?
If that is the case and he has the compromised memory span that he claims, the lack of records on important issues of the State would rate as deliberate misconduct.
Either he has repeatedly given false evidence under oath or withheld documents from multiple inquiries, all of which amount to multiple offences of Perjury or Misconduct in Public Office, -or his mental acuity is questionable, making him unfit for Office.
He can’t have it both ways.
We know that he has used the memory lapse response before a number of inquiries, and on each occasion, it was reported that he used it multiple times. Although Perjury is rated as an extremely difficult case to prosecute, nevertheless, in this circumstance, each time during each examination he used the memory lapse answer under oath, he potentially committed a further offence.
What makes these allegations of Perjury offences so egregious is their proliferation and the high profile of the person responsible. These acts alone serve to undermine the rule of law and encourage others to perjure themselves in all jurisdictions where sworn evidence is relied upon, without consequences.
It is essential that this matter be tested in Court to determine if the actions amounted to Perjury.
At the very least, there is a ‘prima facie‘ case for which his guilt or innocence must be tested.
Why should the Premier be protected from prosecution when anybody else in the Community would have been charged?
We are not arguing for a change of government but that the law be applied equally to all.
Allegedly we are all equal before the law as a fundamental Human Right. Still, the actions of this State’s legal system have now breached the rights of all other Victorians by not prosecuting the Premier.
Because the IBAC Act says IBAC cannot prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Chief Commissioner can.
The Parliament can censure him and refer the matter to the DPP or the Chief Commissioner, which must now happen.
It is also imperative to avoid repetition by others in power, that the Premier, when forced from Office by his colleagues, the most likely scenario, is his discretions do not simply disappear with him.
That would be a travesty of justice of monumental proportions and give license to others to behave in a similar way – integrity in government and the Legal system is then severely compromised, and the integrity of both may end up unrecoverable.
The only other alternative, is we will have to rely on the media to achieve the same result through relentless pressure until his colleagues and Party do what the legal system has failed to do
Why, in 2023, are we still sacrificing children? The North Richmond ‘Safe’ Injecting Room’s very site exposes young children to sights no child should ever have to witness. Have any studies been conducted as to the psychological damage these children may suffer from being exposed to the activities of these drug users? If not, why not? The adverse impact on the local population of law-abiding citizens has been devastating. The location puts the community at risk, but the very essence of the zone for police means not only are drug dealers and users protected from arrest, dealers and users have a level of protection not available to local residents.
Locals, including very young children, have been attacked and harassed by drug users, have witnessed dead bodies in the streets, had their properties damaged, and have seen men having oral sex with men. Other sexual activities of every description are committed in open view.
Parents suffer the constant fear of their children being harmed by the presence of contaminated discarded needles and the behaviours of drug users and children themselves suffer similar fears.
The CAA is opposed to, so-called, Safe Injecting Rooms and has promoted an alternative health-based approach to treating the users of illicit drugs. See http://caainc.org.au/safe-injecting-rooms-a-misnomer/. We see jailing offenders as a last resort. However, our pleas for a real effort to dramatically reduce the number of illicit drug users have fallen on deaf ears. The North Richmond injecting room, rather than reducing illicit drug use, actually facilitates the consumption of dangerous drugs, encourages drug dealers and has had minimal success in turning users away from their habit. Of those lives saved, how many of these users administered a very powerful dose because they knew that if they overdosed, help was at hand? Clearly, the government of Victoria cares more about the welfare of drug addicts than about the well-being of the local population and particularly the welfare of young children.
The CAA implores you to use your power to at least have this facility moved to a site away from our kids and to a place that will not impact the community and enter into discussions examining an alternative that will actually reduce drug addiction, not facilitate its growth. Children are too vulnerable and valuable to sacrifice in the interests of users of illicit drugs.
Kelvin (Kel) Glare AO APM Chair Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. Ivan W. Ray Chief Executive Officer
This is what children have to experience in North Richmond on a daily basis, multiple times and worse. Stepping around comatose addicts or being accosted by the vertical ones. Would you let your kids experience this? The families of North Richmond have to, compliments of the State Government. They didn’t get a choice; the addicts do.
The Herald Sun today, Apr 12 2023, reported on the violence surrounding young children involved in violent clashes as part of a ‘Fight Club’ fad operating within the school system. The club and its protagonists are not gender specific.
Organised through social media, these fights appear vicious and common. It comes after the Herald Sun revealed earlier this week that more than 130 brutal fights involving kids had been posted on the Instagram page which celebrates vicious brawls, including more than 30 just in the past week, reported in just one area of Melbourne.
These events involve at least ten schools, and the social media site used has 2000 followers.
These statistics are beyond alarming, and if anybody is naive enough to see this as a school problem, the spill over into the broader community is inevitable; watch out.
Add to that, the complaints from teachers about violence and lack of discipline in the school system directly impacts the learning progress of all students and the safety in the teacher’s workplace. There is little wonder that teachers are hard to recruit. Who wants to go to work with a real risk of getting bashed? No wonder the standard of education is in such decline.
The CAA has raised these issues for a number of years, so there are no excuses for inaction that our community leaders can present – they have been warned ad infinitum, yet have chosen not to act.
It is sad to say that death or acute injury to a student, at school, or a teacher is inevitable. School shootings, the scourge of America, almost will inevitably come to our schools. Perhaps our gun laws may reduce the incidence of firearms, but bladed weapons will be our nemesis.
Putting the collective heads in the sand by those responsible is a disgrace of epic proportions.
This problem is escalating and will not go away unless they act. Stop looking for excuses to divest your responsibility to others; take a leadership position and act; that is supposed to be your job.
When the community realises that the inaction of those with the power to make changes have avoided doing so, and our most valuable resource and future are in decline, they will be looking to lay blame, which could hurt those responsible as much as the kids now suffer.
The violence our children is exposed to can only lead to an upsurge in violence later in life for these children as they see violence as a means to an end.
As an example, it is not rocket science that the children of North Richmond who are being desensitised to the perils of illicit drugs, exposed to the outcomes daily, will lead to many of those children taking up the ‘cool’ life of an addict.
Will the leadership of today take responsibility for those outcomes?
If we think there is an epidemic of Domestic violence, now wait a decade. As children of today enter relationships as adults, the solution to dispute resolution (FDR) will be domestic violence on a scale that will make today’s skyrocketing incidents seem tame.
Inaction by government and police leadership is responsible, and ducking and weaving will not ameliorate the moral responsibility of failure by notable individuals from both entities.
To the current Government and police leadership, the recent headlines about youth violence can only be ignored at your peril.
With over four hundred years of Policing experience and a raft of other disciplines in the CAA, it would be unwise to ignore the warnings and dismiss the solutions we have proffered.
In 2016 we warned of a coming crime tsunami which was ignored, and the prediction eventuated.
Our feedback from the community is that it is getting sick and tired of inaction on critical social areas while less important, on a quantitative scale, are getting the attention.
This is the litany of issues raised by the CAA that have been ignored.
There is no doubt that additional education of students on the negative aspects and risks of drugs is essential, as are support services for those affected. Still, if ever there was an argument for the allocation of Police Resources to schools to work to prevent the problem, then this is it.
In other States, Police are embedded in Secondary Schools as part of a structured Police In Schools Program, but that does not seem to be a worthy allocation of resources in this State. Paradoxically in other States with structured Police In Schools Programs, Crime rates are falling.
Assistant Commissioner Nugent correctly highlights how the drug issue in schools feeds into the ever-increasing crime rate.
We cannot expect teachers to deal with the criminal aspect of the Drug problem in Schools.
Comment;There is no evidence that police actively tried to address this issue- possibly seen as a School problem.
Apart from the obvious advantages of a safer community overall, the proposal to reintroduce the Police In Schools Program to Primary Schools and embed police in Secondary Schools (PISP) would see a substantial increase in safety for teachers.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has submitted the PISP proposal to both the Government and the Opposition. However, only the Liberal Opposition has embraced and announced the inclusion of a PISP in their policy.
This initiative would be the most effective way to keep our children safe, help protect our educators and reduce stress and achieve better educational outcomes for our children.
Comment; Twelve months later, after multiple representations, no action was taken.
The Herald Sun today, Apr 12 2023, reported on the violence surrounding young children involved in violent clashes as part of a ‘Fight Club’ fad operating within the school system. The club and its protagonists are not gender specific.
Organised through social media, these fights appear vicious and common. It comes after the Herald Sun revealed earlier this week that more than 130 brutal fights involving kids had been posted on the Instagram page which celebrates vicious brawls, including more than 30 just in the past week, reported in just one area of Melbourne.
These events involve at least ten schools, and the social media site used has 2000 followers.
These statistics are beyond alarming, and if anybody is naive enough to see this as a school problem, the spill over into the broader community is inevitable; watch out.
Add to that, the complaints from teachers about violence and lack of discipline in the school system directly impacts the learning progress of all students and the safety in the teacher’s workplace. There is little wonder that teachers are hard to recruit. Who wants to go to work with a real risk of getting bashed? No wonder the standard of education is in such decline.
The CAA has raised these issues for a number of years, so there are no excuses for inaction that our community leaders can present – they have been warned ad infinitum, yet have chosen not to act.
It is sad to say that death or acute injury to a student, at school, or a teacher is inevitable. School shootings, the scourge of America, almost will inevitably come to our schools. Perhaps our gun laws may reduce the incidence of firearms, but bladed weapons will be our nemesis.
Putting the collective heads in the sand by those responsible is a disgrace of epic proportions.
This problem is escalating and will not go away unless they act. Stop looking for excuses to divest your responsibility to others; take a leadership position and act; that is supposed to be your job.
When the community realises that the inaction of those with the power to make changes have avoided doing so, and our most valuable resource and future are in decline, they will be looking to lay blame, which could hurt those responsible as much as the kids now suffer.
The violence our children is exposed to can only lead to an upsurge in violence later in life for these children as they see violence as a means to an end.
As an example, it is not rocket science that the children of North Richmond who are being desensitised to the perils of illicit drugs, exposed to the outcomes daily, will lead to many of those children taking up the ‘cool’ life of an addict.
Will the leadership of today take responsibility for those outcomes?
If we think there is an epidemic of Domestic violence, now wait a decade. As children of today enter relationships as adults, the solution to dispute resolution (FDR) will be domestic violence on a scale that will make today’s skyrocketing incidents seem tame.
Inaction by government and police leadership is responsible, and ducking and weaving will not ameliorate the moral responsibility of failure by notable individuals from both entities.
To the current Government and police leadership, the recent headlines about youth violence can only be ignored at your peril.
With over four hundred years of Policing experience and a raft of other disciplines in the CAA, it would be unwise to ignore the warnings and dismiss the solutions we have proffered.
In 2016 we warned of a coming crime tsunami which was ignored, and the prediction eventuated.
Our feedback from the community is that it is getting sick and tired of inaction on critical social areas while less important, on a quantitative scale, are getting the attention.
This is the litany of issues raised by the CAA that have been ignored.
There is no doubt that additional education of students on the negative aspects and risks of drugs is essential, as are support services for those affected. Still, if ever there was an argument for the allocation of Police Resources to schools to work to prevent the problem, then this is it.
In other States, Police are embedded in Secondary Schools as part of a structured Police In Schools Program, but that does not seem to be a worthy allocation of resources in this State. Paradoxically in other States with structured Police In Schools Programs, Crime rates are falling.
Assistant Commissioner Nugent correctly highlights how the drug issue in schools feeds into the ever-increasing crime rate.
We cannot expect teachers to deal with the criminal aspect of the Drug problem in Schools.
Comment; There is no evidence that police actively tried to address this issue- possibly seen as a School problem.
Apart from the obvious advantages of a safer community overall, the proposal to reintroduce the Police In Schools Program to Primary Schools and embed police in Secondary Schools (PISP) would see a substantial increase in safety for teachers.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has submitted the PISP proposal to both the Government and the Opposition. However, only the Liberal Opposition has embraced and announced the inclusion of a PISP in their policy.
This initiative would be the most effective way to keep our children safe, help protect our educators and reduce stress and achieve better educational outcomes for our children.
Comment; Twelve months later, after multiple representations, no action was taken.
What a shocking headline, and to think this is the tip of the iceberg.
Most perpetrators are children, so the response is even more alarming than the problem.
The implied strategy to prosecute indicates 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 perpetrators, children as young as ten, 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 devastate the victim, but handling it in a draconian fashion will inevitably lead to more significant problems.
We must be about preventing or managing the problem.
Comment; In 2018 we did not predict that any government would be so inept as to raise the age of criminal responsibility, but they are considering doing so. The consequences of that flawed proposal are yet to be fully realised. But this shocking revelation in relation to stalking only further motivated the CAA to take action, and that is when we decided in 2019 to act where VicPol and the Government would not.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) proposes developing a structured school-based program entitled the Police Veterans in Schools Program (PVISP). The pilot program aims to identify the feasibility of using retired and former police members to deliver a program to teach children community values, the role of police and the law and a suite of victim reduction strategies. Central to this program is building relationships between young people and police so that respect can be developed for the policing function.
Comment; From frustration and inaction by VicPol, the CAA designed and built a School-based program to be delivered by Police Veterans to dovetail with the State school’s curriculum. The CAA recruited a number of Schools who were very enthusiastic and equally enthusiastic retired police to operate a Pilot to demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. But unfortunately, the day the program was to start, COVID hit, stopping the program.
From day one VicPol was invited to be involved in the CAA initiative.
On Feb 6 2020, The Age education editor, Adam Carey, reported that a global survey shows Australian classrooms are among the least disciplined in the world.
Learning time is lost to noise and disorder, and many students cannot work well in class.
Australia ranked 70th out of 77 participating nations in the OECD’s 2018 index of disciplinary climate.
Coupled with the abysmal level of Australian students learning Maths, it is high time that discipline is reintroduced into all classrooms.
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) will introduce police veterans into selected schools in 2020. Our program (PVISP) was launched on Nov 23 2019, and sought to instil in students the basic tenets of good citizenship and provide students with the skills to avoid becoming involved in crime or being victimised.
Comment; How much better position would we now be in had these early warnings been heeded? To blame COVID is an absolute cop-out, as a little creative application could have introduced the concept to the school population and would have helped and been superior to the current approach. But we are now twelve months out of COVID, and still, inaction is the outcome. How many warnings must there be?
Commissioner Ashton’s letter to the School Principals was blatantly designed to undermine the Police Veteran’s School volunteers. He set out a broad raft of mainly reactive claims that allegedly are applied somehow to schools.
The problem is schools generally know nothing about it. It can only be described as spin.
School principals that have contacted us are either angry or confused because they never see what Ashton claims to be happening. Instead, they embraced the Police Veterans In Schools Program (PVISP).
Comment; Even with Ashton’s letter to schools criticising and distancing VicPol from the program, most schools still wanted to proceed, if only on an informal basis. Aggravating the letter, an internal memo was sent by VicPol to all police stations directing them not to cooperate with schools involved in the program or members of the CAA. Even so, the school’s commitments generally did not wain; however, COVID ended that.
Victoria, do not underestimate the importance of the announcement by Chief Commissioner Patton of a Police in Schools Program (PISP) (Herald Sun 24/3/21).
This change in the policing approach is very significant and will have a positive impact on the lives of us all.
The failure of former Police Chief Commissioners to re-implement this important Policing strategy is partly responsible for the increased crime rates in past years, particularly in serious crimes committed by juveniles.
The reintroduction of a structured PISP has been the cornerstone and the basis for the formation of the Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA), which I have the privilege to chair.
As a group, we have worked for six years for this outcome, and we unreservedly congratulate Chief Commissioner Patton for reintroducing this program.
At this time, we were very heartened when the current Chief Commissioner, Shane Patton APM announced that VicPol would finally implement a formal Police schools program for Victoria.
Comment; Unfortunately, two years later, we are yet to see the Chief Commissioners’ commitment realised.
We do not question the commitment and intent of the Chief as we believe he was genuine. Still, we are advised that he struck headwinds from other Senior executives who coincidently featured in the era when former Commissioner Nixon cancelled the project originally. Ashton followed through attempting to stop the reintroduction, all be it by veterans not impacting the Police resource argument.
The objectors can be easily identified by their lack of policing skills and poor understanding of proactive policing, the most effective type. The need to replace these people with enlightened and competent executives has never been more urgent.
Victoria Police have rolled out justification for not introducing a formal police schools program, and the list of police activities in schools at first glance is impressive until closer examination reveals a huge serving of spin is all it is.
Police attending schools on an ad-hoc basis with no structured curriculum is both inane and inept akin to smoke and mirrors. It is also the easy way out, just playing with the kids.
It is flawed dramatically, with no ability to measure outcomes or coordinate and target issues of concern with no ability to modify to rising challenges.
The current approach is similar Police Lecture Squad of many years ago. This allegedly highly trained Police team visited schools on a full-time basis and prided itself on its specialist status.
It featured prominently in Annual Reports and was seen as the frontline in working with kids.
This Team were briefed about a severe problem in a particular school and tasked to rearrange their schedule to address the issue urgently.
After much resistance, the Team arranged to see the school at an assembly of the whole school. (Avoiding confronting the age group responsible for the concerns)
To the amazement and embarrassment of their supervisors, the Team presented a short dissertation on pedestrian road safety and did not address or mention the serious issue the school faced.
As a direct result, the Team was disbanded and transferred to Operational Duties.
Where this Chief Commissioner is facing headwinds either in executive management or at the coordinating level, those placing the roadblocks or are unable to perform their task must be removed, and competent people deployed to the function.
This question is not an allegation and is posed in response to an article that appeared in the Guardian on the 12th of May 2021 under the headline ‘Queensland police discriminated against 200 potential male recruits in favour of women’ and sent to the CAA by a concerned reader of our recent article ‘Police staffing faces a perfect storm’.
Whether this has applied in Victoria, we do not know, but anecdotal information has been consistent that male recruit applicants are routinely discarded without giving a reason. They have apparently not been advised of any deficiencies so that they can address them, which seems unfair.
Moreover, the number and ratio of Police Training squads is no firm indication as to whether there is discrimination because we do not know if all the female recruits have been selected on merit and the males used to fill up the numbers.
This leads to the suspicion that an ‘aspirational ‘(euphemism for discrimination) gender quoter system may be being applied in Victoria.
The Guardian article reports on the findings of the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission which said, ‘…the state police service’s 50/50 recruitment strategy resulted in discriminatory practices being used against male candidates.’
As a result of the findings, three QPS employees responsible for the practice have been suspended, and a fourth had already left the service.
Interestingly the role of those suspended QPS employees and their rank were not disclosed. However, the Corruption Commission was clear on where the problems lay, senior command.
We would like to be reassured that this process has not been in action in Victoria because if it has, then it is inevitable that the position will be challenged at some stage.
Building transperancy in to the system is essential.
If it is in operation, either officially or otherwise, it is in direct contravention of the Equal Opportunities Act 1995 Section 16, which prohibits discrimination on a number of Attributes – amongst the list of attributes is gender and race, along with a number of others.
Equal Opportunities Act 1995
Part 4—When is discrimination prohibited?
Division 1—Discrimination in Employment
16 Discrimination against job applicants
An employer must not discriminate against a person—
(a) in determining who should be offered employment; or
(b) in the terms on which employment is offered to the person; or
(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer employment to the person; or
(d) by denying the person access to a guidance program, an apprenticeship training program or other occupational training or retraining program.
Alarmingly, potential recruits in Victoria spend nearly a thousand dollars preparing for their assessment.
Spending that sort of money, it is reasonable that the applicants can be confident the selection process is fair and legal. With the cost, apart from being a clear disincentive, it eliminates many potential recruits who are financially disadvantaged.
We struggle to find any other career stream where applicants have to cover the costs of the employer in their assessment.
Being poor is not an egregious attribute. Arguably, people in this cohort may be better equipped for a Policing role with their life experiences with perhaps compassion and understanding. It also disadvantages specific ethnic and other sectors of the community.
The discrimination against this group shrinks the potential recruiting pool.
Recruiting for any Police Force is a critical function and determines the future of that organisation; therefore, it is imperative that all recruits are treated equally and according to the Law.
Applying discrimination in the recruiting process is unconscionable, given the expectations of successful recruits.
The community reasonably expects Police to act impartially without fear or favour, including swearing an oath to that effect. It expects the same from the organisation.
The CAA sincerely hopes that the Queensland experience has not operated in Victoria.
If it has, the community is entitled to know and needs to be reassured that the matter is fixed and those responsible have been dealt with.
Starting a career in the shadow of processes based on inequality or bias is no way to expect good outcomes, particularly when it is in direct contravention of Legislation. That inequity and bias can be ingrained at the start of a police career suggests it is unlikely that it will not have a deleterious effect on the individual’s performance during their career.
A Police member performing their duty does not police only one sector of the community, but all, and must apply the Law equally. Therefore, it matters not the gender, ethnicity, or other personal traits of applicants; what matters is the application of the Law.
That the makeup of a Police Force is from a broad church is a good thing, but when quotas are applied, it is counterproductive.
The CAA has no issue with and welcomes female Police recruits to the organisation, as it does for any ethnicity or from anywhere on the social economic scale: the Force is better for it.
However, we feel that any discrimination is repugnant and reflects poorly on the organisation as it places a shadow over many members who never know whether they were appointed on merit, gender, or ethnic-based quota systems.
This does not lead to a cohesive and effective workforce.
It is of serious concern to the community that Victoria Police is apparently having difficulty recruiting sufficient numbers to fill the vacancies created by retirements and other staff exits.
Not only will the community feel the impact of the Police not being available to respond to their needs, but Police will endure substantial frustration not having proper numbers available, with an increased workload falling on those still there. This will substantially accelerate the loss of members through stress-related issues.
We do not need to look too far over the horizon to see a perfect storm brewing into an untenable situation or even a crisis for the Force, and the community, because they are both inextricably linked.
The four significant contributors converging are.
Stress on Police
There has been, and continues to be, an escalation in Police leaving due to stress-related issues.
Recruits are difficult to attract.
The Force is having difficulty attracting suitable recruits in the current employment environment.
Public employee staff cuts
The most recent announcement by the Government to make a substantial cut in Public Service employees, with, at this stage, emergency services, Police, ambulance and Fire services not been quarantined. The impact will be devastating.
Impact of Migration
And to magnify the impact of these issues, the net migration intake has exploded, with hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving in Victoria.
What can be done? Quite a lot, actually, and putting one’s head in the sand waiting for the inevitable is not one of them. Secondly, VicPol, as tempting as it may be, must not lower its standards but devise creative ways to cover this shortfall. Altering standards is short-sighted and will lead to worse outcomes down the track. Kicking the can down the road is not a good management strategy.
Stress on Police
In our view, there has been less than appropriate management for many members suffering from stress over an extended period. Management seemingly takes the easy way out and funnels members with stress out of the job rather than the more difficult task of facilitating or working with clinicians to overcome the issue. Management lacks the capacity to be innovative and create pathways for solutions to help relieve the stress on individuals, and that anomaly must be addressed
Many members who have left suffering PTSI have two common threads.
Police management was a major contributor to the degree of their stress injury, and
Following close behind were the insurers and either Workover or Gallagher Bassett, contributing to their issues.
Some sufferers seemed to have been more affected by the above two issues than the issues that caused their stress in the first place. If that seems a contradiction, it is, but they are both issues that should be capable of being addressed relatively easily with VicPol management commitment. Somewhere in the order of fifty per cent of the aggravating problems could be reduced substantially, improving the chances of retaining the member as a worthwhile contributor.
We have always believed that expecting a person suffering, either suspected or confirmed PTSI, to negotiate on their own behalf is unconscionable; they are injured. So instead, each member must be appointed a case manager to assist them with making sound decisions. Implementing such a scheme is essential, but the advocate must be given influence within the organisation, or otherwise, they will be ineffective.
A case manager needs the minimum following attributes;
Maturity -intimate knowledge of Police culture -deep understanding of Force policies, procedures and structure – advanced life skills – proven leadership and communication skills.
Former senior Police officers would be ideally suited for this task.
Recruits difficult to attract.
The current employment environment and the image trashing VicPol has suffered in recent years are forces working against the flow of recruits.
The current marketing campaign’s underlying message is ‘ come play with our toys’.
That approach has been tried before without remarkable success and, on some levels, is insulting to the calibre of recruits VicPol would want to attract.
A campaign ‘’are you good enough’ will pay closer to the psych of the recruits VicPol should favour.
Anecdotal feedback suggests that police veterans’ children, who should be a fertile recruiting ground felt they were discriminated against in the recruiting process.
Whether this is a fair criticism, we do not know, but we do know little effort is made to provide a pathway for this potential market.
Although there are signs of improvement, the treatment of veterans by all levels of VicPol has been very negative and also contributed to this resource not producing the number of recruits it could.
Public employee staff cuts.
As unpalatable as this is, it will probably only be the Police Association that attacks the Government; VicPol can’t.
However, VicPol can be very smart. These cuts are all about saving money for the Government.
This is work for specialist Actuarial and Financial analytical experts working with creative Police management generally but more specifically in recruiting and staff resorucing.
VicPol, to its credit, started the move towards establishing a viable reserve, now advertising for former Police to return for a specialised task. That will be an economic saving while achieving Force objectives.
While small-scale, it can be built on.
Although marketing this first approach is a bit rough around the edges, arguably insulting applicants before they consider the offer is not a sensible approach. Nevertheless, it is a positive move and should be lauded, not criticised, by a minority of veterans, as is currently the case.
A stumbling block often put forward is that Police veterans are no longer sworn Police.
For a very long time, Police who had retired retained their Certificate of Identity. The privilege of retaining their ID has never been abused by the thousands of Veterans who have kept them, it is a respect thing.
The same would apply if the Police Regulation Act was amended so that Police veterans retained their status as sworn. At the discretion of the Chief Commissioner, who may withdraw the privilege from individuals if circumstances arise.
The judicious use of these Veterans would save money while maintaining and improving the police service. Retired members are often a bit physically frayed through age, but that does not affect their mental acuity; it just means they can’t jump fences chasing crooks anymore, probably the same for many older members still serving.
It is hoped that VicPol is closely looking at the Military Reserve model for inspiration rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Impact of Migration
The number of migrants that will be calling Victoria home over the next little while is bordering on scary, particularly if you are charged with the responsibility of ensuring law and order for this new cohort that will come with its own set of cultural and other values that may not be compatible with Australian values or laws.
Of course, VicPol has been dealing with this issue for many years very successfully, as we are a migrant country and welcome their contribution. But we do not recall a time when so many are likely to arrive with issues that we cannot predict . While many commentators focus on the lack of infrastructure to accommodate the large influx, nobody seems to have applied their minds to the impact on Policing.
From a Policing perspective this influx is a bit like getting kicked when you are already on the ground.
Policing could be overwhelmed, leading to chaos.
The migration issue is a classic political move where one arm of the Government makes a decision to serve its needs, and dealing with the consequences is hived off to another level where the pain is really felt.
What we have set out is the prediction of a perfect storm bearing down on VicPol, the damage that may be caused is perhaps irreversible.
The CAA is alerting the organisation so that planning to deal with this perfect storm to be faced, can be escalated to the highest priority to minimise the inevitable damage.
Do you remember the shocking case of two-year-old James Bulger?
1993 James was abducted, tortured and murdered by two young boys. The murder happened in the UK, and Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were convicted for this atrocious crime. They were both ten years old when the offence occurred. The high-profile 1993 British case horrified the world, everybody was rightly stunned as to how that could happen, but it did.
James Bulger being abducted by Thompson and Venables.
2017 An eleven-year-old boy was charged with Murdering Patrick Slater in a brawl in Perth.
2020 Solomone Taufeulungaki, a Melbourne Teenager, was murdered by a gang of eleven, including two thirteen-year-olds. They have all been charged with Solomone’s murder.
Melbourne Teenager Solomone Taufeulungaki was murdered by children
2021. Five young people charged with Murder in Sydney, boys aged 13,14,15,13 and a girl aged 15, were apparently the perpetrators, all charged with the murder of a sixteen-year-old boy.
2023 Media report that a 13-year-old was charged with the murder of his 4-year-old sibling in Danville, Virginia, US. The 13-year-old was charged with murder after suffocating their sibling and confessing to the crime.
2023 The report (H/S 16/03/23 p.22) of the murder of a twelve-year-old girl by classmates aged twelve and thirteen who confessed the crime. The victim was stabbed thirty times and dumped in a wooded area.
In this incident, offenders were aged twelve and thirteen and was particularly gruesome and horrific; highlighting the folly of increasing the age of criminal culpability to fourteen.
This murder occurred in Germany, where the age of criminal responsibility has been lifted to fourteen, and neither perpetrator can be charged, raising some very interesting issues for Victoria, currently considering the same regressive move.
Will the victim’s family face being confronted by the perpetrators in their community?
How will the family cope knowing the murderers were not punished or even tried?
What happens if the perpetrators claim innocence? Their matter is never tried so they will be forever tarred with the title murderer? The legal maxim, innocent until proven guilty, may not reconcile with the Court of Public opinion.
What happens to the perpetrators? The sheer brutality requires the community to be protected.
Clearly, the police would have no power to intervene in any continuing offending, so who does?
We accept that these offences are not an everyday occurrence. Still, they are so brutal when they happen that the community cannot and will not tolerate this decriminalisation as part of being an enlightened society – particularly for the families of those who, as a result, have their loved ones’ lights put out, brutally and permanently.
These random examples are just a few of what happens, and it happens here, so we would be extremely foolish to take the ‘won’t happen here’ path.
It has and will continue to happen; the uncomfortable truth for the social dreamers is that as much as we might wish it, it is inevitable.
This current push in Victoria has the hallmarks of another Social construct that is not well thought out and devoid of an understanding of the consequences and reality.
The number of children aged 10-14 charged in 2007 was just over 10% (of all young people charged), but by 2016, the trend had the figure at 4.3%, according to the Crime Statistics Agency Vic.
Our current strategies are working, although they could be improved upon; why dabble, build on a solid foundation if you want enhanced results.
As the law currently stands in Victoria, a child over ten and under fourteen cannot be charged with a criminal offence unless they knew the alleged act was wrong when they did it. The safeguard of having an independent person/ parent present when the child is interviewed, to our knowledge, has never been challenged.
This proposal is like throwing the baby out with the bath water, inane.
There is no doubt that youth crime has grown overall, but then so has the community, and the Police Cautioning program, its years of success, with its low recidivism rate remaining the cornerstone of this multi-discipline approach in guiding young people away from crime. Still, it is not designed to deal with serious crimes committed by the very young, which has to remain the purview of the Courts.
The following questions we pose for the Government.
What mechanisms will be in place to protect the community?
What mechanisms will be designed to help victims?
What do police do with the child?
What protections exist to allay litigation for the victim or the perpetrator?
What strategies prevent criminals from exploiting and using children to commit crimes, particularly in the drug scene?
Germany has made a grave mistake with their approach, lifting the age to fourteen; there is no empirical data even to hint that the current system in Victoria of the age of responsibility is an issue.
A home invasion where victims are woken to find perpetrators in their houses is extremely frightening. However, this scare is not mitigated because the perpetrators are subsequently determined to be children. The victims will be just as terrified in some circumstances fearing for their life, irrespective of the age of the offenders. A list of Home invasions allegedly committed by children under fourteen would be too long to detail here.
The danger increases for the victim if the perpetrators are young, as they do not understand all the consequences of their actions. That is an irrefutable fact.
We have no issue with, and support developing strategies to reduce the incidence of juvenile offending and support any efforts in this area, and equally support the current multi-discipline approach to reduce the likelihood of young people reoffending.
However, we strongly reject the current proposal, which effectively removes the ability of police to give a formal caution where the child, the parents, and professionals can be brought together to assist the child’s direction and also completely ignores the rights of victims and the broader impact on the community. The risk of escalating child criminality is just too great.
We do strongly recommend that a formal and structured police-in-schools program be revisited as a preventative initiative with the added advantage that the assistance for the children can be coordinated with the schools bringing police and the professionals together to achieve better outcomes, focusing on prevention and follow-up of children cautioned, improving the outcomes for children. Such a program also educates children in the pitfalls of being involved in anti-social behaviour in all its forms and encourages their formal education.
Additionally, this program will support School staff confronted by children or parents and create an overall safer school environment for all, to improve educational outcomes overall.
So let’s hope sensible, pragmatic ideas prevail and raising the age of criminal responsibility is not pursued.
Premier – don’t do it.
The CAA would be happy to assist the Government in achieving a workable plan with reduced risks to all.
Public drunkenness is now under partisan political consideration—another half-baked approach to Public Policy.
Drunkenness has been a community issue since time immemorial, and there is no empirical data to show it is any worse or otherwise than it has been for many decades, relative to the size of the population.
Decriminalising public drunkenness is fixing a problem that does not exist to any significant degree.
As public drunkenness can be confused with homelessness, vagrancy, mental illness and drug abuse, it is, therefore, sensible that the ‘sobering up’ process should be done under medical supervision, which the Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) supports. Equally, because the likelihood of belligerent behaviour is inclined to be more prevalent with drunkenness, securing and safety of these people and the community is and must remain a Police responsibility.
Once the affected person settles and the community is safe, the police can hand them to a facility where clinicians take responsibility.
This whole policy seems to have been designed by people without experience with drunks in the field.
Perhaps a little research should be undertaken, and then the proponents of this social adjustment may just find the number of persons convicted each year for drunkenness as a percentage of the population is meagre. And of those arrested and charged, even fewer are actually convicted, and no record of their indiscretion is recorded.
We reject absolutely the need for racial profiling in this process. Irrespective of the drunk’s heritage or race, they all need the same care.
Exposing the naivety of this proposal, the Herald Sun reports, “Patients at the sobering up site can only be taken with their consent and police or paramedics will need to step in if they become a safety risk or need urgent care.”
This statement alone raises very serious questions and exposes a lack of knowledge of a drunk person’s usual demeanour or the law.
With decriminalising drunkenness, the Police have no power to ‘Step-in’ when the contractor’s management of the drunk goes pear-shaped.
Drunks always consider they are not drunk enough to need care or admit to what they have consumed.
A person who is perceived to be drunk cannot give Informed consent at law.
Entering into a debate about sobriety, consent or otherwise, is a recipe for belligerence.
Our experience is it would be a rare drunk who would agree to the time out in the drunk tank.
How can a government sub-contractor physically intervene with a drunk?
What happens when a drunk is involved in a crime, either as a victim or a perpetrator – it does happen?
A serious risk assessment for contractors out on the street without powers is a disaster waiting to happen. The legal minefield this opens up for the liability of the government and contractors is breathtaking.
Another legal minefield will occur when the drunk decides they are sober enough to leave the facility, but the clinicians know they are not. Holding them even with their uninformed consent would be unlawful. (currently, Police have four hours to detain somebody who is drunk.)
Contractors will find difficulty hiring or retaining staff for this high-risk and filthy foul job.
Another small matter is suitable transport for drunks. The inevitable mess that often is associated with their transport is why police use a Divisional Van that can be hosed out. Putting a drunk in a traditional vehicle is impractical as vomit and other bodily fluids often exuded by drunks tend to permeate every nook and cranny and cannot be removed easily.
The consequence of placing multiple drunks in a facility not properly designed, quasi cells, will lead to inevitable conflict and a huge risk to clinicians.
All police know that when it is determined that a person is drunk, they must be decisive, not enter into debate and secure the drunk immediately to minimise the risk of injury to the drunk, the Police or the public. This skill is learnt and cannot be assumed to exist with untrained subcontractors. A questionnaire is no substitute for years of onsite experience.
The police power of arrest for drunk and disorderly must be left in place to protect the drunks, the Police and the public.
A pattern is now evolving with Political police. This is currently developing into the go-to solution for government initiatives. These new ‘Drunks Police’ have all the hallmarks of another enforcement arm of the government, as we experienced during the COVID pandemic.
Every Victorian should be very concerned about this move as it can lead to a Socialist state policed by Political apparatchiks who are not accountable to the State but to a political party. Untrained but politically accountable without independence to apply the drunks policy impartially.
Rather than contracting out these services, perhaps that funding should be applied to Policing and Ambulance services rather than an expensive contracting arrangement with our money, or will that money be borrowed?
With minimal cost, ‘Drunk Tanks’ are the answer and are legally more palatable. Drunks or other intoxicated people can be placed in clinicians’ care at these Tanks, and the problem is effectively solved.
It certainly gives the impression that those pushing these reforms care little about the individuals or do not comprehend the likely consequential outcomes and effects.
What is most disturbing is that the government is seeking solutions from bidding contractors, “..bidders have also been asked detail how their staff will respond to difficult situations.” Herald Sun 15th March ’23.
This proposition is preposterous, to say the least – how does a proper tendering process work if the bidder writes the policy? There is no way this can be an efficient or reasonable tendering process, with each bidder making their own rules, and it is an admission beyond doubt that the government does not know what it is doing and hopes a contractor will.
This issue has a whiff of appeasing a small cabal of extremists who claim to represent all of us. Well, they do not.
The only plan we can detect is a plan to introduce unnecessary change, popular with a small number of social reformers, intent on breaking down the structure of our democratic society and, in turn, our democracy, with crime and substance abuse rampant, destroying a sizeable ever-growing cohort of wasted lives at an astronomical cost to the community.
Drunk Tanks are like Drug shooting galleries – they do not address the issue but perpetuate it.
It seems obvious the extremist’s grand plan is to weaken society, allowing the growth of autocratic leadership to determine what is best for the rest of us; the problem is that they do not.
The horrifying concern is that the same protagonists pushing these reforms also push defunding the Police. The CAA executive has attended meetings where these issues were raised.
That social experiment has already been tried overseas and failed miserably, which has cost those communities more to rebuild Policing; one problem is the difficulty of very few recruits availing themselves of policing as a career, having seen what happened in the defunding period.
As far as we can tell, the issue of public drunkenness has arisen from one incident where a drunken person self-harmed in a police cell after being arrested for drunkenness.
As sad as that is, that was not the fault of the Police, or the existence of the Offence of Drunk and Disorderly, as we believe no evidence would have excluded the self-harm happening at any other facility, time or place and that drunkenness itself far too often leads to self-harm for which benign arrest is often the only viable solution.
Police see their intervention with somebody drunk in a public place as a Police function, but the sobering up process is a health issue.
Given the demands for service, the idea that drunks can be conveyed home or to some safe place by Police or ambulance is ludicrous.
If changes are to be made, they must be well-considered and practical to avoid numerous unintended consequences.
We strongly support the concept of a ‘Drunk Tank with’ medical oversight. That will improve the safety of the Drunks and the community. Instead of putting drunks in a cell, police can put them in a drunk tank for their four-hour sobering up.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
