by CAA | Jan 13, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
13th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has made no secret about its alarm and despondency at the continuing unwillingness of Victoria’s courts (meaning many of our magistrates and judges) to sensibly apply the law and impose appropriate sanctions to proven violent offenders.
Time and again by the imposition of inadequate penalties their actions tell criminals within our society that there are no real consequences for predatory behaviour. “Do it again chaps!” Is this some sort of job-creation scheme?
This week we saw Shaun Mowbray reportedly plead guilty to his NINTH offence of bashing police – among an extensive career of preying on the rest of us. (Herald Sun 12/1/18). Instead of setting a well-deserved maximum penalty the magistrate opined the court should consider individual circumstances.
Such as the circumstance that the policewoman Mowbray bashed will be off work until after Mowbray returns to a free society? No, no. Such as the circumstance that Mowbray had threatened other peace officers? No, no. Such as the circumstance that Mowbray had threatened to burn down his own mother’s house? No, no.
The magistrate was only talking about the sob story put up by Mowbray’s lawyer. To hell with the rest of society!
Oh there was lip-service – or should that be “gesture politics” – paid to “public expectations”; but yet again the words just meant nothing. Yet again the courts have demonstrated that …well, you make up your own mind, dear reader, about what the courts have actually demonstrated.
Elsewhere we have pointed out how the cry for “therapeutic justice” is used, without legislative or authoritative fiat to justify such abrogation of responsibility. Not therapy for victims, of course. They do not count in that scheme.
Hence we see Dr Kevin Donnelly, in the same newspaper recalling former days when “governments and authorities … acknowledge(ed) that their first and primary responsibility is to protect the lives and property of citizens instead of making excuses for those committing crimes”.
We would add to those responsibilities: giving a measure of realistic protection to those who stand in harm’s way on our behalf.
Words are no substitute for action and the hollow assurances being trotted out time and again from Spring Street merely serve to define this as the State of False Pretences, Political Correctness & Spin.
Repeated acts of violence deserve severe penalties and when the victims of that violence – repeatedly – are our protectors we cannot stand idly by and tolerate such pretences masquerading as a fair application of the law.
by CAA | Jan 9, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
9th January 2018
Last week leaders in government and police finally admitted Victoria has a gang problem.
We say finally because the gang problem is not new. Ten years ago government was told this. A media article in October 2007 reported on senior police advising Premier JOHN BRUMBY of their frustration at government’s inability to go beyond political correctness to focus on criminal gang behaviour.
Crime by gangs of young thugs was identified back then as a looming threat. Now the threat is a reality of tsunami proportions.
We acknowledge that African gang crime is committed by only a few among this particular community. But the nature of this criminality is violent creating mayhem for many citizens and damaging the lives of a growing number. Police regularly arresting some only to see them bailed out does nothing to reassure the public nor keep our society safe.
As things stand in this state unless positive action is taken people are going to die. Just last weekend an innocent pizza store employee was shot, twice, in a robbery. If he had returned fire just imagine the outcry against him by the apologists for criminals!
Let us resolve to actually punish serious criminal offenders with the penalties set by Parliament, to close loopholes in the law that allow judges and magistrates to avoid doing just that, and to tell would-be criminals, of any age, and any ethnicity, that their open warfare against Victoria’s citizens just ended.
This Government is asleep at the wheel. Its time it jettisoned political correctness and its ideologically driven “therapeutic” approach to justice which underpins our judicial system and woke up to a primary mandate for any government – to keep its citizens safe.
by CAA | Jan 7, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
7th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has seen so many of its observations and proposals become widely recognised by others that it almost becoming mundane. We have discussed how out of touch the judiciary has become, how Victoria’s crime tsunami grew and grew and how both government and its agencies stood helplessly looking on.
The Sydney-based Weekend Australian was also looking on. Read the January 6-7 edition. Headlines read “African gang’s reign of fear” (p.1), “Smartphone ban annoyed alleged (bailed) cop-kicking teen” (p4), “(judge) Lasry tweet ‘risks court impartiality’ “ (p. 4), “Streets of Menace” (p. 11), “Melbourne is Trouble-free for Gangs or Union Thugs” (p. 16), “Politically correct culture erodes the justice system”, (p. 17) and “Gesture politics blocks the nation’s progress” (p. 11) – all save the last item dealing exclusively with Victoria.
This respected national observer chose to speak out where our own State authorities either misled us or did too little too late. Will they now listen to what we said – now that the national newspaper is saying it? Probably not, despite last week’s about-turn on recognising, at long last, the existence of gangs.
We believe that too many magistrates and judges in Victoria have for so long demonstrated unwillingness to apply the law to recalcitrant or serious offenders, seeking excuses to avoid jailing those who most obviously prey upon citizens and looking for loopholes in the law, and that as a group they should now be made more publicly accountable; the courts ought to more overtly support the police officers who expose those offenders, by imposing penalties that fit the crimes. The absence of adverse consequences for offenders ensures that their peers and admirers will copy them – hence the “tsunami”.
Thus we advocate the appointment of judges and magistrates on the open recommendation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee, rather than on the basis of who are politically correct favourites.
We also advocate such appointment becoming contractual, with renewal depending upon the same Committee being satisfied that an official has actually demonstrated willingness to apply the law of the land fairly and with proper regard for the protection of the persons and property of citizens.
To best avoid any appearance of party favouritism the committee’s views should not be acted upon unless supported by a majority of members drawn from both sides of the Lower House.
by CAA | Jan 3, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
3rd January 2018
The troll we exposed, Victoria Police head of Professional Standards Command, could face charges as could his colleague.
The Federal offence of,’ Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence’ carries a penalty of three years imprisonment.
It would seem that there is a primia facie case that the two Commissioners acting in concert have breached this Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. However, as there has been a refusal to investigate the matter there remains a doubt, albeit that the allegations have never been denied by VicPol or either of the Commissioners.
That makes this whole saga very embarrassing for IBAC and the Chief Commissioner who both failed to investigate a complaint of a serious crime.
It is also very embarrassing for the State Government.
The two Assistant Commissioners involved in this issue will be waiting for the inevitable tap on the shoulder either from their more ethical colleagues or one of their ethical bosses.
To retain any remnants of credibility the two Commissioners have left, they should do the honourable thing and resign to save further embarrassment to the Force and in particular the Force Command who are currently under fire for the perilous state of crime in this State and can ill afford a further erosion of public confidence..
A bigger problem remains for the Premier, Daniel Andrews who has steadfastly supported the Chief Commissioner.
Does he now support the Chief Commissioner refusing to investigate complaints of criminal activity by Victoria Police Command like his Minister who announced today (2/01/2018) her complete confidence in Police Command?
By the Chief Commissioner not doing what the Police Act requires him to do he has put himself in a tenuous position bordering on complicity. Not ensuring that Victoria Police is distanced from the scurrilous remarks by Assistant Commissioner Fryer by ensuring they are retracted and the Trolling activity by Assistant Commissioner Guerin ceases, drags the Government into the fray because the refusal to investigate means that the activities of the Commissioners are endorsed by Victoria Police.
This whole sorry saga needs to be sorted and unfortunately falls to the feet of the Acting Chief Commissioner in what may be a true test of his credentials given that Chief Commissioner Ashton has already announced he will not be extending his tenure with no guarantee he will fulfil his contract, given his poor health.
Mr Premier there is a wildfire moving out of control and it will consume many if it is not controlled.
The integrity of Victoria Police Command is at stake.
Maybe you need to do some shoulder tapping.
by CAA | Jan 3, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
3th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance recently had cause to expose underhanded Victoria Police tactics by a senior officer, acting under a false name in what can most charitably be described as an unbecoming manner. The Chief Commissioner of Police has refused to take any action and has thereby supported that poor conduct.
Unfortunately this is just part of a pattern indicative of deep malaise within that organisation, and particularly within the “Professional Standards” section of it.
The Chief Commissioner has also refused to take any action in a case where detectives knowingly charged a citizen on the basis of documents they knew were not just unreliable but were also completely inadmissible in court – yet they put those unreliable documents forward in court.
This gross abuse of power was ruled fully acceptable by police Professional Standards!
The same detectives produced to the citizen another document which fully disproved their allegations against him – but that document was NOT put before the court and has never been seen again. Professional Standards approved that too!
The Chief Commissioner has been told about the detectives inserting in a witness statement material they knew was false – just as Andrew Rule exposed in the Herald Sun (November 26, 2017). And yet the Chief Commissioner has done nothing but refuse to act.
CAA has other correspondence from a head of the police Professional Standards command which incorporates not merely dishonesty but abuse of the very law the police are supposed to enforce.
Nothing has been done despite complaints having been lodged, just as CAA has reported the most recent abuse.
None of this is new. Andrew Rule also reported (Herald Sun October 3, 2015) how Professional Standards covered up a straight out theft by a detective who has since “progressed smoothly up the promotional ladder.”
Something stinks at police headquarters, and it is not the drains.
by CAA | Jan 2, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
2 January 2018
Possibly the last suspect on your list, it was on ours.
A personal attack on the Chairman and more generally on the Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) by Victoria Police was aimed at trying to discredit and bully the organisation as thirty years out of touch and therefore irrelevant to the modern demands on Policing.
The attack was delivered on behalf of Victoria Police by an acting Deputy Commissioner Fryer.
The attack apart from being generally churlish was factually incorrect and exaggerated. It is true that some of our members of the executive of the alliance have retired from executive positions in Victoria Police and elsewhere some time ago. But the CAA Executive also has civilian members who influence the CAA from a community perspective and like the Policing component represent historical and current victims. The executive also has members who finished their police careers recently.
What may not be particularly palatable to Victoria Police is that serving police support the CAA and much of the material produced and policies recommended are influenced by these members.
The attack was of a personal nature and an attempt to bully the CAA but most disturbing was the avoidance by Victoria Police of actions to address the thing that has spawned the CAA and community concern – the Crime tsunami currently being experienced in Victoria.
This core issue was completely ignored.
The CAA acknowledged that things like sexual harassment and discrimination are important and should form part of management responsibilities but to elevate these internal management responsibilities above the roll of the police organisation and responsibility to the community it serves is to really question priorities.
Part two of this attack was a post on the CAA Facebook page by a Vernon Demerest which generally followed the same line as the Fryer attack. This Demerest attack was in response to a defence of the Victoria Police allegations by one of the CAA executive who was personally offended.
In his attack Demerest bemoans that the Plan 100 produced by CAA as, “A list of easy gets, which appeal to populist politicians who aren’t really interested in doing the heavy lifting by investing in the things which will really make a long-term difference to the social problems we currently endure. Early intervention in childhood development and education, for example.”
This is an enlightening insight to the author who criticises the Plan 100 obviously without reading it. A key strategy of the Plan 100 is to re-engage with Youth and in particular to reintroduce Police to Schools in a structured Police In Schools Program. Be interesting to know what all this heavy lifting is and how that helps Victorians currently living in fear. Having cheap shots at politicians will not do the authors career any good.
A bit about Demerest.
Vernon Demerest is a fictional character played by Dean Martin in the movie Airport, ironically thirty years ago. Yes the Facebook page is a fake as is Demerest fictional.
Demerest became a troll on the CAA Facebook page lodging a number of posts attacking some of the genuine people who made rational coments.
Demerest was invited to expose his real identity but as with all trolls he continued to hide.
One would have thought that the troll who is a serving member of the Victoria Police would have realised that trying to outsmart a coterie of ex police who coincidently are all trained investigators would not be the smartest thing to do..
It did take us forty eight hours to identify the Troll’s alter ego, who is ironically in charge of the Victoria Police Professional Standards Command. He has now taken down the fake Facebook page deleted all of his posts and even deleted his own Facebook page. All a bit late the material was retained by the CAA and for security distributed and filed elsewhere.
The problem for the CAA is, what to do now.
We know who the troll is but to expose the troll would be very embarrassing for Victoria Police given the positon the Troll has in the organisation but the public has a right to know as they are paying this troll’s salary.
Because of the lack of response to our correspondence from Victoria Police we lodged a formal complaint against Assistant Commissioner Fryer for his outburst and Assistant Commissioner Guerin, AKA Vernon Demerest the troll.
As the Police Act requires any complaints against any Commissioners must be referred to IBAC, who after consideration, not investigation, returned the file to the Chief Commissioner and we have no difficulty with that process thus far.
The Chief Commissioner has however decided that he will not investigate or take further action.
We can only conclude from that that the Chief Commissioner endorses the libellous remarks by Assistant Commissioner Fryer and effectively adopted the remarks as those of Victoria Police. The Chief Commissioner obviously has no problem with Assistant Commissioner Guerin, the head of Victoria Police Professional Standards Command, creating a false identity on social media with the sole intention of pursuing a personal attack on the CAA and its Chairman.
I would have thought that this behaviour is not very ethical and wonder how a members of a lower rank doing the same would be treated by the Professional Standards Command.
We ask again for the Chief Commissioner to investigate this matter properly and if the evidence is there commence disciplinary proceedings or otherwise sanction the two Commissioners and step Victoria Police away from endorsing this type of behaviour.
by CAA | Dec 31, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
31st december 2017
A personal attack on the Chairman and more generally on the Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) by Victoria Police was aimed at trying to discredit and bully the organisation as thirty years out of touch and therefore irrelevant to the modern demands on Policing.
The attack was delivered on behalf of Victoria Police by an acting Deputy Commissioner Fryer.
The attack apart from being generally churlish was factually incorrect and exaggerated. It is true that some of our members of the executive of the alliance have retired from executive positions in Victoria Police and elsewhere some time ago. But the CAA Executive also has civilian members who influence the CAA from a community perspective and like the Policing component represent historical and current victims. The executive also has members who finished their police careers recently.
What may not be particularly palatable to Victoria Police is that serving police support the CAA and much of the material produced and policies recommended are influenced by these members.
What stood out about this attack and what was obviously the personal nature and an attempt to bully the CAA but most disturbing was the avoidance by Victoria Police to address the thing that has spawned the CAA and community concern – the Crime tsunami currently being experienced in Victoria. This core issue completely ignored.
The CAA acknowledged that things like sexual harassment and discrimination are important and should form part of management responsibilities but to elevate these internal management responsibilities above the roll of the police organisation and responsibility to the community it serves is to really question priorities.
Part two of this attack was a post on the CAA Facebook page by a Vernon Demerest which generally followed the same line as the Fryer attack. This Demerest attack was in response to a defence of the Victoria Police allegations by one of the executive who was personally offended.
In this attack Demerest bemoans that the Plan 100 produced by CAA is, “A list of easy gets, which appeal to populist politicians who aren’t really interested in doing the heavy lifting by investing in the things which will really make a long-term difference to the social problems we currently endure. Early intervention in childhood development and education, for example.”
This is an enlightening insight to the author who criticises the Plan 100 obviously without reading it. A key strategy of the Plan 100 is to reengage with Youth and in particular reintroduce Police to Schools in a structured Police In Schools Program. Be interesting to know what all this heavy lifting is and how that helps Victorians currently living in fear. Having cheap shots at politicians will not do the authors career any good.
A bit about the Demerest.
Vernon Demerest is a fictional character played by Dean Martin in the movie Airport, ironically thirty years ago. Yes the Facebook page is a fake as is Demerest fictional.
Demerest became a troll on the CAA Facebook page lodging a number of posts attacking some of the genuine people who made rational coments.
Demerest was invited to expose his real identity but as with all trolls he continued to hide.
One would have thought that the troll who is a serving member of the Victoria Police would have realised that trying to outsmart a coterie of ex police who coincidently are all trained investigators would not be the smartest thing to do..
It did take us forty eight hours to identify the Troll’s alter ego who has now taken down the fake Facebook page deleted all of his posts and even deleted his own Facebook page. All a bit late the material was retained by the CAA and for security distributed and filed elsewhere.
The problem for the CAA is, what to do now.
We know who the troll is but to expose the troll would be very embarrassing for Victoria Police given the positon the Troll has in the organisation but the public has a right to know as they are paying this troll’s salary.
by CAA | Dec 29, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
29th December 2019
The cost of criminal activity in this State is skyrocketing and whether the impost is on our taxes or our insurance premiums we all pay, many times twice, but the criminals responsible, do not.
It is time to raise again that much maligned concept of restitution.
It is argued that most criminals, particularly younger ones, have no capacity to pay, so restitution is a waste of time. The capacity to pay should not influence the liability. The ability to pay and the liability are not mutually exclusive.
It may be some years before a criminal has the capacity to pay restitution but the debt should not be expunged by serving a sentence or other court sanction of any type, a bit like HECS fees. The victim or their Insurers do not have the capacity to wipe their cost, so why should the criminal who gained from the crime, avoid responsibility. There is something perverse about crime paying.
• The issue of reasonable restitution to victims should be determined by the Judiciary at a point in proceedings where the case is proved (Guilt is determined) and before the matter of sentence is addressed.
• The costs associated with the crime should form part of the Police Brief so the material is available to the court, the prosecution (to prosecute for appropriate restitution) and the defence (the defendant).
• Offenders under 18 can have the restitution liability linked to their parent/s. Once this becomes known, watch the improved supervision of minors by parents.
• Recovery of the restitution from perpetrators after they are released or have some other Court imposed sanction, should be managed by the Tax Office not the Courts on a set minimum rate of 25% of their income, irrespective of how that income is derived.
• At any time the Convicted person can expunge the debt by settling with the Tax Office.
• Social Service income should not be excluded and the restitution payments are not quarantined by minimum taxable incomes or other thresholds.
• The effect of any court order in relation to restitution liabilities must be retrospective to the date of the offence so that criminals who try to hive off assets (when caught) will have them seized to service the liability.
The implementation of this concept would be a major crime prevention initiative with criminals knowing that the liability for their behaviour will be there until the debt is settled, similar to Taxation liabilities.
The benefit to victims will be generally more symbolic, as some criminals will never make good on their debt, but many victims may benefit over time as the adage of, crime does not pay, becomes a reality for criminals.
White collar crime is an area where the greed of the offender (usually money) in effect becomes their penalty. It seems odd that the system incarcerates fraudsters and they can walk away unencumbered at the end of any sentence. The restitution liability would in many cases negate the need for incarceration and the criminal will be punished substantially by the thing that caused the offending, money. There is a pleasant irony that the motivator for their offending is the penalty they need to endure.
The bonus to all of us is that we do not have to pay for the incarceration.
Recidivist offenders would see their liability climb. That escalating debt may also act as a deterrent from further criminal activity knowing that at any time the tax office can seize any assets they accrue until the liability is expunged.
Using restitution as part of the legal consequences of offending will enable the Courts to substantially reduce the numbers of offenders in jail as the nonviolent that pose no physical threat to the community can make way in the prison system for more deserving cases.
At least if the matter is managed by the tax Office we can be assured of fiduciary competence as that office is equipped to manage the long game that this may end up being with career criminals.
That the restitution issue impacts on sentencing is problematic but the broader community would find it much easier to accept an apparent lenient court imposed sentence in the knowledge that the offender has a reasonable restitution liability to help the victim.
by CAA | Dec 28, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
28th December 2017
If a criminal makes a victim of one person (perhaps by stealing, or perhaps by killing) then the law and its appointed officials are supposed to ensure that justice is done for that victim – right? And that does sometimes happen. But too often it does not happen, and sometimes the law actually prevents that happening.
Sometimes the evidence against the offender is not allowed to be presented by laws made, not by Parliament, but by lawyers.
Here we will mention just one aspect of this absurdity. Under the Common Law which founded our rules of evidence which are relevant to a case (whether to the prosecution or the defence of an accused) could, and should, be put before the court. In more serious cases that means put before a jury. And it should make no difference as to how that evidence was obtained.
This led to certain injustices, particularly where some form of duress was used to obtain a “confession”. We can all agree that could not stand – if for no other reason than the very strong likelihood that any admission elicited by force would not be actually true, but merely given to stop the force continuing. Simple enough.
But then the lawyers took us down the path of the dreadful “Miranda” decisions born in the USA. Yes, that haven of technicalities and complexities was brought to Australia just like movies and coca-cola. Movies, literature and news media are replete with examples of the absurdities that followed in the US, and we shake our heads at how that was allowed to happen; how did our cousins get it so wrong?
Well, we did too. We followed them. More specifically, criminal lawyers persuaded our Courts to follow them. Judges make laws sometimes, when our Parliaments are – or remain – silent.
So now in Victoria, if evidence has been obtained improperly it will probably not be allowed to be put before a jury or court. If it was obtained illegally, as opposed to merely improperly, you can bet on it being disallowed. And all this applies to material that flows from an improper or illegal act (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle).
All very noble, you might think, but the consequences are often grossly ignoble. In one case the police obtained a warrant to install a listening device in an office and thereby obtained evidence of “businessmen” bribing taxation officials. The problem was – according to these judge-made laws – they got into the office by a subterfuge; that was reckoned to be improper. So the tape recordings of the offenders’ conversations was not allowed to be put forward.
(Do not bother to ask just how a listening device, or “bug” could otherwise have been installed the office – that is not the point here.)
Should the police have carte blanche to go anywhere to search for evidence? No, or course not. But is it right that when they – or any other witnesses for that matter – come across relevant evidence by accident, or while looking for something else without proper authority, or perhaps in ignorance of the laws, should be compelled to keep that relevant evidence from a jury/
For example, if an employee of a firm suspects criminal misconduct by the employers and takes a copy of the firm’s records that show this, should that be enough to let the criminals off? Many an honest employee is prepared to “blow the whistle” but the present laws seem to work against this.
If a constable comes across some people in a car and requires them to open the car boot (perhaps for no real reason other than a general feeling of suspicion or unease) and finds a dead body (or stolen property, if you like) shouldn’t he or she be allowed to tell a court about that?
If a burglar finds a murder victim in a house, while pursuing his own illegal trade, or even hears the murder being committed, would you not want a court to know about that when the murderer is being tried?
We do not suggest that anybody who acts illegally should get off scot free just because they happen to obtain evidence of a crime by a perpetrator, but it is not logical to allow the perpetrator to go scot free just because somebody else did something wrong. The present rules often let perpetrators go free to continue their depredations – to make further victims of us all.
The law should seek to protect us from offenders, and to protect any accused person against false evidence – and should doubtless protect any us against seriously abusive conduct committed against us (and that goes for those accused of crimes, too) but the approach of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as our courts now do, ultimately works against society.
It is certainly possible to frame laws that strike a balance between the seriousness, or wilfulness, of an action, and the seriousness and relevance of evidence that flows from it.
Proponents of the present absurdity will argue that it is necessary to prevent some people (probably police officers, but not necessarily) wilfully trespassing against the rights of others in order to gain evidence. Those proponents are commonly in the camp of criminal lawyers who themselves have much to gain from that argument, or Human Rights Lawyers who object purely because they can ,but put that aside for the moment.
It cannot be denied that there have been occasions when precisely such trespasses occurred – when suspects were mistreated in some way, quite deliberately, and quite outrageously. But note that we argue that such behaviour should not go unpunished – that usual deterrents should apply. We merely argue that another offender, or accused person, should not go unpunished merely because of misconduct by somebody else.
Are we really so incapable of distinguishing between the baby and the bath water? Do we really have to let crooks go free because of the sins of others? Do we really need to slavishly adopt the flawed lawyer-and-offender-friendly rules from another jurisdiction where it is routinely abused?
Why do we allow society, ourselves, to be victimised twice – once when an offender commits a crime and again when he/she escapes punishment because of some error by somebody else?
In this current environment the Government must now be heard on the Miranda debacle and clearly articulate how they propose to Legislate change.
by CAA | Dec 27, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
27th December 2017
Each hour of Community Service work given to Ahmed El Lababidi of Glenroy for bashing a policewomen is another reason for the judiciary to be placed on performance based contracts.
The Judiciary again has found a way to out manoeuvrer the Government (and the people) and circumvent the Law. The Magistrate runs the Court so the buck stops with him no excuses or blame shifting.
The contempt shown toward the Government (and us) in this case is beyond belief and is only exceeded by the contempt shown the victim.
So it goes to prove that the Judicial system can choose to ignore the Law.
You can bet that the Magistrate didn’t even award damages to pay for the dental work or the six weeks she was off work or the loss of confidence that the police member now suffers and may affect her ability to pursue her career in a manner she would have liked to.
With all that, the Office of Public Prosecutions is now considering an appeal that would not be necessary had the Magistrate done his job in the first place.
Might be a top idea to reinstate the charge of Assaulting an Emergency Worker and the other dropped charges and present the defendant to another Magistrate and not waste time on an appeal.
As it was reported that the other charges were dropped, not proceeded with, Victoria Police could reinstate and present the defendant on those matters to another Court and show some ticker and support for their member. They could also seek a Court Order for the damages and hit the offenders’ hip pocket.
He can then contemplate the way he intends to find the money while serving the mandatory six months for assaulting the Emergency Service Worker.
Be interesting to find out if this was a manoeuvre by the Courts which would avoid deportation if El Lababidi was at any risk of that sanction.
by CAA | Dec 1, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
1st of December 2017
The opening question asked by radio host Neil Mitchell when interviewing Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin in response to his exposure as a serial troll by the CAA was, “Are you guilty?”.
Guerin’s response was, “Yes.”
Guerin’s trolling was not restricted to the CAA but had been occurring for a number of years under the alter ego of Guerin, Vernon Demerest.
With that announcement the future career of Guerin was sealed it would be untenable for him to command again and remain part of the Victoria Police executive.
His interview with Mitchell descended into a series of justifications liberally sprinkled with pleas that he was not trying to excuse his behaviour. Apologising to his family was fine. He ought to have thought to apologise to his victims and withdraw the disparaging remarks he made.
The only reason that Guerin was pleading his case is that he had been caught out and was making a ham-fisted attempt to minimise his culpability. Being stood down by the Chief Commissioner is not a ringing endorsement for this strategy.
It is a sad indictment on Police Command that one of their brethren just, doesn’t get it. The community has a reasonable expectation, as do rank and file members of the Police force, that the Commissioners voluntarily hold themselves to a higher standard. A philosophy that Guerin did not ascribe to, as was evident in his interview playing down the seriousness of his misbehaviour.
We question whether other senior police in the close knit senior ranks were aware of his trolling as it had been going on for years.
Those, if any, who knew but took no action are also culpable and it will only be a matter of time before exposure. Self- reporting may be their best option.
Like in all these things it has opened Pandora’s Box. People with allegations of misconduct in relation to the Police Executive and some senior Officers may be emboldened to come forward.
Repercussions of Guerin’s activity and ‘Guilty Plea’, will reverberate through the upper echelons of Victoria Police for some time to come yet.
The CAA is proud to have provided this service to Victoria by revealing this matter.
To all of our supporters including many serving and former police who have encouraged and congratulated the CAA on its work, thank you.
Ivan W Ray
Secretary
Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Nov 29, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
29th December 2017
Plea Bargaining is the trading down of offences committed by a perpetrator in return for a guilty plea. Guilty criminals reduce their sentence by having offences they committed whitewashed and, as an added bonus, because they were never convicted of these offences, should they reoffend not having those crimes ever used against them again. It is a system that benefits our worst and most violent criminals, the very ones we want removed from our community.
Allegedly these Plea bargaining deals are done in consultation with the Informant (the police member who charged the offender) and the victim, but in practice this process managed by Prosecutors and Defence Counsel operates perilously close to coercion in obtaining (if they do) any acquiesce from parties.
This process is very attractive to criminals that have been caught dead to rites; not only do their crimes get watered down and offences whitewashed but they get the bonus of the Court not hearing the magnitude of their offending, the anguish and suffering of the victim and attract an ‘early guilty plea’ sentence reduction as well.
A criminal who steals a car, burgles a house, sexually assaults one victim and shoots another the wounds nearly fatal, steals all the family valuables while high on an illicit drug is a prime candidate for a generous plea bargain. That the Police caught the offender in possession of the firearm in the stolen car with the family’s property and additionally a quantity of the drugs, you would think it would be a clear cut open and shut case that the perpetrator would be held to account for all these offences.
But this perpetrator can bargain for the majority of the offences being dropped, including the most serious, in return for a guilty plea to one or two lesser charges. Other offences not proceeded with are effectively expunged. There is something criminal about that.
This type of Plea bargain is argued as efficient jurisprudence as proceeding to trial with all the matters would not achieve a better result. What does ‘better result’ mean and for whom, the community may have a very different opinion to jurists.
While one of the objectives of our legal system is to rehabilitate offenders, we all know that in the majority of cases where offenders commit multiple offences rehabilitation is realistically a pipe dream, but the plea bargaining process paradoxically rewards bad behaviour of our worst and often most brutal criminals, how sensible is that?
It is the reoffending that highlights the absurdity of plea bargaining, which by the way is not legislated but a process introduced by lawyers, not our elected government, raising the question as to who is the main beneficiary of this process. I am tipping it is not the victims.
After fulfilling the penalty imposed in the scenario above the perpetrator re offends, as too often is the case, the offences that were whitewashed (not presented so no conviction)from the earlier trial cannot be presented to the court as a prior conviction. That means in a new trial for drug offences the perpetrators previous history of drug abuse and consequential behaviour cannot be put before the Court. The Court would reasonably treat the subsequent drug offence by this criminal differently had the Court known this was an habitual and brutal offender, whose previous offending involved drugs.
Another matter of substantial influence on Plea bargaining is a reluctance of prosecutors to run cases where there is a risk that costs may be awarded against the Crown or Police. Cost are never awarded against the defendant in criminal matters irrespective what costs are borne by the Crown by shenanigans of the defendants or their legal counsel.
There is no argument with costs being awarded against the Crown or Police if the prosecution is malicious in any way but to regularly, as a matter of course, award costs against the Crown or Police simply for a case to fail is a relatively new nuance in the history of jurisprudence and must be addressed by legislators as a matter of urgency.
Unwilling to proceed with cases based on the risk of costs, is yet another win for the career criminal and makes nobbling of witnesses by the criminals and or associates an advantageous endeavour.
If the main justification for this plea bargaining outbreak is cost, then the old adage of,’ Justice on the cheap is justice denied’, has certain resonance jurists should note.
The ridiculous growth of the practice of plea bargaining is now permeating in to how crime is recorded. In the first report from the Community Safety Trustee there was a proposal that the Government is seeking to change the recording of crime statistics to measure incidents rather than the current method which measures all the individual offences irrespective whether they are carried out by the same offender at the same time.
This new idea could mean that all offences that occurred in the Bourke Street Massacre, the multiple offences committed in a particularly egregious aggravated home invasion or the slaughter committed by Julian Knight would all be recorded as just three events or crimes.
Claims in the media by Police that the number of young offenders are decreasing but offenders were committing multiple offences, suggesting somehow this distorts the real figure and the impact of their offending. This hypothesis would be fine was it not for the inconvenience of there being victims, they can’t whitewash or plea bargain their suffering.
A cynic may conclude this new methodology is nothing more than a bit of goal post shifting because of the poor score in their present position. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Overlooked completely by the justice system in their efforts to rein in costs is the impact plea bargaining has on crooks. If they are involved in an ‘incident’ then committing more offences in the commission of that crime doesn’t matter and the deterrent effect of risking a harsher penalty evaporates because they know most of what they do will be plea bargained away, so what the hell.
The lack of prosecution and the soft option of Plea bargaining for offenders aggravated by the knock on effect for recidivists having their crimes purged for the future is a major contributor to the breakdown of Law and Order. Offenders getting free passes and multiple rewards from the legal system for bad conduct, (including their legal fees covered) is bizarre, so it is not surprising that criminality prospers at the expense of us all.
The huge costs of dispensing justice might be reined in if criminals were held to account discouraging them from their lawless ways rather than rewarding them for their bad behaviour.
The scales of justice need to be reset.
by CAA | Sep 10, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
10th September 2017
The laws removing a person’s right to drive are designed to improve compliance and reduce death and injury on our roads. This is a laudable and noble endeavour; however, when that noble cause also creates undesirable consequences, it should be reviewed.
There is no doubt that the strong penalties imposed on drivers who break road laws have a deterrent effect, particularly on young drivers, but the current sentencing (some mandatory) needs to be discussed and reviewed. Sentencing or penalties should be about correcting behaviour not about destroying lives and making things worse for our community.
The total removal of the right to drive can be a terrible penalty with many unintended consequences that do not always achieve the desired effect. If a penalty also means losing employment, this is very severe for a first offence and is counterproductive to the greater community good.
There will be an argument that the transgressors deserve what they get and they made bad choices and put others at risk – perhaps there is merit in that view, but when considering the overall impact of these penalties that they can be disproportionately unfair, particularly for first or young offenders. There needs to be a pragmatic review of the system. Destroying lives is not good Justice.
We are not talking about dangerous, serial or rogue recidivists. They do not deserve compassion.
There is a bias in imposing penalties against those who are employed in the non-professional sphere. Licence Suspensions and Disqualification coupled with fines (often and routinely higher than for property crime and crimes of violence) may utterly destroy those who need a driver’s licence for their job.
Taking away a person’s livelihood for relatively minor offences is cruel and unjust.
The first thing that happens to most trade-orientated defendants is their job is lost and hope of employment in their trade unlikely. Apprenticeships can be lost forever. Some professional people and workers in retail, health and hospitality can access their work by public transport but frequently a trade worker must be able to drive, not just to access their workplaces but to undertake their work. Mechanics who cannot test drive a car, or plumbers and carpenters who cannot carry their tools to work, are just some of a myriad of jobs that require a licence. We may, of course, add any employment where a driving licence is an employment condition.
Workers who lose their licences and their jobs lose the capacity to pay fines. Defaulting on penalties can lead to imprisonment. The loss of income also means that any loans un-serviced can result in foreclosure and the probable repossession of the goods, usually their car. This inevitably leads to the downgrading or loss of any form of credit rating. The multiplication effect of penalties does not take into account that the offender still has to live and the penalty is further magnified if the driver is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Insolvency and bankruptcy are sometimes inevitable.
In summary, penalties for low range traffic offences and first offenders are destroying lives.
It is incongruous that penalties regularly reported in the media for crimes of violence, drug and property offences (and even some high-range driving offences) seem to be proportionally and sometimes lighter than those imposed on drivers who are first-time offenders for low-range offences.
Poorly applied sentencing penalties will not lead to a reduction in offending, but an escalation as perpetrators convert to victims of the system. They can feel trapped and can see only the option of repeat offending, or resorting to habitual welfare, joining the unemployable.
A feeling of hopelessness and being trapped in the” Unintentional Cycle” pushes many to criminal activity and or drug abuse as an escape or an ill-advised path to a solution. The untold mental damage and perhaps self-destruction is bad enough for the individual but the impact on the community is underrated.
Low-level traffic offenders can go from net contributors to a net liability for the community through welfare.
Drivers need to be accountable for their non-compliance, but we need to review the removal of drivers’ licences to allow the courts to use diversions, conditional Suspensions and Disqualifications.
It seems odd that diversion is the preferred option for the courts in criminal matters, but they do not apply the same standards to traffic matters. The rationale should be identical.
To remove a licence conditionally by limiting hours of driving so that the defendant can continue to work, would seem to be a fairer outcome and the impact on their social life not unreasonable – though even that may be excessive for a first offender.
Why should we not offer Good Behaviour Bonds in traffic cases as is done in some other State jurisdictions?
Under the current system, we still have many recidivist traffic offenders. The current regime does not promote compliance to any higher degree than the alternative approach we recommend.
How many of the current crop of recidivist drivers lost their licence for their first offence and ended up in the “Unintentional Cycle”?
We call on the Government to bring about necessary changes to legislation to provide greater flexibility in sentencing for traffic offences in Victoria, making them at least comparative to the criminal sentencing practices.
Ivan W.Ray Hon. Secretary Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Aug 6, 2017 | Library, Police Veterans in Schools, Uncategorized
6th August 2017
“The Hub”, is a designated building designed to house several Police related Not for Profit organisations and critically to provide a purpose-built base for the operation of the Retired Police Peer Support Program.
The Retired Police Association (RPA) Peer Support Program (PSP) has only been operating for less than two years and has cobbled together sufficient funds to train up 41 Retired (PSP) staff who operate purely on a voluntary basis throughout Victoria and also cover their own and clients out of pocket expenses.
In this very short time frame, the group are looking after 400 ex-police varying in need from the company to serious mental health issues including depression, PTSD and addictions to gambling, drugs and alcohol.
The group are finding the same experience as the Department of Veterans Affairs where issues, particularly of PTSD, are manifesting later in life.
The CAA has recruited the recently Retired Deputy Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Mike O’Meara who has extensive experience in administering the Psych services of Defence to advise the CAA on the administration of these initiatives and to assist the RPA.
Based on world practises, we can assume that fifteen per cent of ex-members will need some assistance with mental health issues after they cease employment with VicPol.
This probably is replicated with other emergency services, particularly the Ambulance Service. To say that the RPA has seen but the tip of the iceberg is a statement made in fact. It is not unreasonable to warn the Government of a tsunami of mental health issues for ex-police that is not far away and the early intervention of a Peer Support Program may lessen the impact and cost when it arrives.
Funding is a pressing necessity with the program only having sufficient funds to see them through to mid-2017. Apart from the meagre funds of the RPA, the group have received funding from the Police Association to assist with training however the financial viability of the program for the long term must be addressed relatively urgently to allow the practitioners to get on with the job rather than worrying about funding. I am at a loss as to how PSP has been so successful to date given that they have achieved their success on such a minuscule budget and what they have achieved and is testament to the dedication and ingenuity of the Retired members running the program.
Of a much more pressing necessity is the establishment of ”The Hub” facility which ideally will provide suitable accommodation for the PSP operatives and their administrative support but also house Clinicians to back up the program and act as a referral for some of the more dire cases handled by the PSP.
One of the problems is the stigma either real or perceived that people suffering mental health issues experience.
To that end, we propose to establish a commercial coffee shop as the front door of the services. A space people needing help can attend without fear of stigma. I am important that the Coffee shop is a commercial venture catering for the public to assist with the anonymity of people to access the resources.
The PSP has identified the security of the PSP operatives as a major concern as they are not permitted to attend private dwellings and currently their only option is to meet at local coffee shops. This is proving unsatisfactory by not offering the clients some confidentiality but also by the lack of security should a client have an episode.
We have identified a surplus Government building on the corner of Coventry and StKilda Road, South Bank, adjacent to Victoria Barracks. The building has been vacant for many years and originally housed the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatients Psych Service.
We understand that the building has either been or is in the process of being transferred from the Commonwealth to the State ownership and we understand that part of the ownership process is a condition that the Veterans Art created as part of the rehabilitation within DVA has a permanent display gallery.
We have not inspected the building, but it is highly probable that the needs of the “The Hub” could co-exist with the Gallery. Until we have access to the building, we will not know the suitability.
The concept of “The Hub” requires the ability to develop a commercial coffee shop so location is important, good public transport and car access is essential and sufficient room to provide administration for RPA PSP, Blue Light Vic., CAA, Blue Ribbon, Police Legacy, Operation New Start, Police in Schools, Police Games Administration and clinical services to support RPA PSP.
We would be interested in accessing any alternate surplus Government Buildings preferably reasonably close to but not necessarily in the City.
Bringing all of these organisations together will have the bonus of improving their capacity to perform their various NFP functions and also add to the anonymity of ex-members going to the facility to seek help or undergo treatment.
It will also allow for easier access to these organisations by VicPol and the Government.
We would be pleased to discuss any options in relation to this initiative.
by CAA | Aug 6, 2017 | Library, PTSD, Uncategorized
6th August 2017
“The Hub”, is a designated building designed to house several Police related Not for Profit organisations and critically to provide a purpose-built base for the operation of the Retired Police Peer Support Program.
The Retired Police Association (RPA) Peer Support Program (PSP) has only been operating for less than two years and has cobbled together sufficient funds to train up 41 Retired (PSP) staff who operate purely on a voluntary basis throughout Victoria and also cover their own and clients out of pocket expenses.
In this very short time frame, the group are looking after 400 ex-police varying in need from the company to serious mental health issues including depression, PTSD and addictions to gambling, drugs and alcohol.
The group are finding the same experience as the Department of Veterans Affairs where issues, particularly of PTSD, are manifesting later in life.
The CAA has recruited the recently Retired Deputy Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Mike O’Meara who has extensive experience in administering the Psych services of Defence to advise the CAA on the administration of these initiatives and to assist the RPA.
Based on world practises, we can assume that fifteen per cent of ex-members will need some assistance with mental health issues after they cease employment with VicPol.
This probably is replicated with other emergency services, particularly the Ambulance Service. To say that the RPA has seen but the tip of the iceberg is a statement made in fact. It is not unreasonable to warn the Government of a tsunami of mental health issues for ex-police that is not far away and the early intervention of a Peer Support Program may lessen the impact and cost when it arrives.
Funding is a pressing necessity with the program only having sufficient funds to see them through to mid-2017. Apart from the meagre funds of the RPA, the group have received funding from the Police Association to assist with training however the financial viability of the program for the long term must be addressed relatively urgently to allow the practitioners to get on with the job rather than worrying about funding. I am at a loss as to how PSP has been so successful to date given that they have achieved their success on such a minuscule budget and what they have achieved and is a testament to the dedication and ingenuity of the Retired members running the program.
Of a much more pressing necessity is the establishment of ”The Hub” facility which ideally will provide suitable accommodation for the PSP operatives and their administrative support but also house Clinicians to back up the program and act as a referral for some of the more dire cases handled by the PSP.
One of the problems is the stigma either real or perceived that people suffering mental health issues experience.
To that end, we propose to establish a commercial coffee shop as the front door of the services. A space people needing help can attend without fear of stigma. I am important that the Coffee shop is a commercial venture catering for the public to assist with the anonymity of people to access the resources.
The PSP has identified the security of the PSP operatives as a major concern as they are not permitted to attend private dwellings and currently their only option is to meet at local coffee shops. This is proving unsatisfactory by not offering the clients some confidentiality but also by the lack of security should a client have an episode.
We have identified a surplus Government building on the corner of Coventry and StKilda Road, South Bank, adjacent to Victoria Barracks. The building has been vacant for many years and originally housed the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatients Psych Service.
We understand that the building has either been or is in the process of being transferred from the Commonwealth to the State ownership and we understand that part of the ownership process is a condition that the Veterans Art created as part of the rehabilitation within DVA has a permanent display gallery.
We have not inspected the building, but it is highly probable that the needs of the “The Hub” could co-exist with the Gallery. Until we have access to the building we will not know the suitability.
The concept of “The Hub” requires the ability to develop a commercial coffee shop so location is important, good public transport and car access is essential and sufficient room to provide administration for RPA PSP, Blue Light Vic., CAA, Blue Ribbon, Police Legacy, Operation New Start, Police in Schools, Police Games Administration and clinical services to support RPA PSP.
We would be interested in accessing any alternate surplus Government Buildings preferably reasonably close to but not necessarily in the City.
Bringing all of these organisations together will have the bonus of improving their capacity to perform their various NFP functions and also add to the anonymity of ex-members going to the facility to seek help or undergo treatment.
It will also allow for easier access to these organisations by VicPol and the Government.
We would be pleased to discuss any options in relation to this initiative.
by CAA | Jul 5, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
5th July 2017
‘THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.’
If a criminal makes a victim of one person (perhaps by stealing or killing) then the law and its appointed officials are supposed to ensure that justice is done for that victim – right? And that does sometimes happen. But too often it does not happen, and sometimes the law actually prevents that happening.
Sometimes the evidence against the offender is not allowed to be presented by laws made, not even by Parliament, but by lawyers.
Here is just one aspect of this absurdity; under the Common Law of England, which we inherited, evidence which was relevant to a case (whether to the prosecution or the defence of an accused) could, and should, be put before the court. In more serious cases that means put before a jury. And it made no difference how that evidence was obtained.
This led to certain injustices, particularly where some form of duress was used to obtain a “confession”. We can all agree that could not stand – if for no other reason than the very strong likelihood that any admission elicited by force may not be actually true, but merely given to stop the force continuing. Simple enough.
But then the lawyers took us down the path of the dreadful “fruit of the poisonous tree” decisions born in the USA. Yes, that haven of technicalities and complexities was brought to Australia just like movies and Coca-Cola.
Movies, literature and news media are replete with examples of the absurdities that followed in the US, and we shake our heads at how that was allowed to happen; how did our cousins get it so wrong?
Well, we did too. We followed them! More specifically, criminal lawyers persuaded our Courts to follow them. Judges make laws sometimes, when our Parliaments are – or remain – silent.
So now in Victoria, if evidence has been obtained improperly it will probably not be allowed to be put before a jury or court. If it was obtained illegally, as opposed to merely improperly, you can bet on it being disallowed. And all this applies to material that flows from an improper or illegal act (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle).
All very noble, you might think, but the consequences are often grossly ignoble. In one case police obtained a warrant to install a listening device in an office and thereby obtained evidence of “businessmen” bribing taxation officials. The problem – according to these judge-made laws – was that they got into the office by a subterfuge; that was reckoned to be improper. So the tape recordings of the offenders’ conversations was not allowed to be put forward.
(Do not bother to ask just how a listening device, or “bug” could otherwise have been installed in the office – that is not the point here.)
Should the police have carte blanche to go anywhere to search for evidence? No, or course not. But is it right that when they – or any other witnesses for that matter – come across relevant evidence by accident, or while looking for something else without proper authority, or perhaps in ignorance of the laws, should be compelled to keep that relevant evidence from a jury?
For example, if an employee of a firm suspects criminal misconduct by the employers and takes (steals) a copy of the firm’s records that show this, should that be enough to let the criminals off? Many an honest employee is prepared to “blow the whistle” but the present laws seem to work against this.
If a constable comes across some people in a car and requires them to open the car boot (perhaps for no real reason other than a general feeling of suspicion or unease) and finds a child’s dead body (or stolen property, if you like) shouldn’t he or she be allowed to tell a court about that?
If a burglar finds a murder victim in a house, while pursuing his own illegal trade, or even hears the murder being committed, would you not want a court to know about that when the murderer is being tried?
We do not suggest that anybody who acts illegally should get off scot free just because they happen to obtain evidence of a crime by a perpetrator, but it is not logical to allow the perpetrator to go scot free just because somebody else did something wrong. The present rules often let perpetrators go free to continue their depredations – to make further victims of us all.
The law should seek to protect us from offenders, and to protect any accused person against false evidence – and should doubtless protect any us from seriously abusive conduct committed against us (and to some extent that goes for those accused of crimes, too) but the approach of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as our courts now do, ultimately works against society.
It is certainly possible to frame laws that strike a balance between the seriousness, or wilfulness, of an action, and the seriousness and relevance of evidence that flows from it.
Proponents of the present absurdity will argue that it is necessary to prevent some people (probably police officers, but not necessarily) wilfully trespassing against the rights of others in order to gain evidence. Those proponents are commonly in the camp of criminal lawyers who themselves have much to personally gain from that argument, but put that aside for the moment.
And strangely, they do not argue that evidence unlawfully obtained that assists the defence should be excluded, but put that aside, too.
It cannot be denied that there have been occasions when precisely such trespasses occurred – when suspects were mistreated in some way, quite deliberately, and quite outrageously. But note that we argue that such behaviour should not go unpunished – that the usual deterrents should apply. We merely argue that another offender, or accused person, should not go unpunished merely because of misconduct by somebody else.
Are we really so incapable of distinguishing between the baby and the bath water? Do we really have to let crooks go free because of the sins of others? Do we really need to slavishly adopt the flawed lawyer-and-offender-friendly rules from another jurisdiction where it is routinely abused? Why is our Parliament silent when the same abuses are occurring here under laws made outside Parliament?
Why do we require society, ourselves, to be victimised twice – once when an offender commits a crime and again when he/she escapes punishment because of some error by somebody else?
Noel Newman APM NPSM
Retired Commissioner Queensland Police Retied Deputy Commissioner Victoria Police
Hon. Treasurer Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Jun 19, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
19th June 2017
There is no doubt additional education of students on the negative aspects and risks of drugs is important, as are support services for those effected but 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 is correct in highlighting 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. Not their role.
We would hope Mr Nugent uses his influence on Police Command to reverse its stubborn rejection of allocating Police to Schools and provide police to work with other professionals to deal with the problem as well as implement prevention strategies.
A properly structured Police in Schools Program, not ad hoc visits, where potential problems are dealt with throughout a child’s education has a proven track record of reducing crime that benefits the community. Children and youths can be diverted from involvement in Drugs and other anti-social behaviours (not limited to but including Domestic Violence, Bullying and Ideological Radicalisation) taking the load off the professional services including Operational Police and the Courts.
Better to prevent than wait for them to offend and then deal with the consequences as now is the strategy – our children are surely worth that much.
Ivan W Ray
by CAA | Jun 17, 2017 | Library, PTSD, Uncategorized
17th June 2017
“The Hub”, is a designated building designed to accommodate a number of Police related Not for Profit organizations and critically to provide a purpose built base for the operation of the Victoria Police Retired Police Association Peer Support Program (PSP) and support VicPol peer support activities.
The Retired Police Association (RPA) PSP has only been operating for less than two years and has cobbled together sufficient funds to train up 41 Retired Police PSP Councillors who operate purely on a voluntary basis throughout Victoria and also cover their own and clients out of pocket expenses.
In this very short time frame the group are looking after 400 ex police varying in need from social company to serious mental health issues including depression, PTSD and addictions to gambling, drugs and alcohol.
A parallel program is operated by Victoria Police and that program could be accommodated in part by “The Hub” in its operations.
The PSP group is having similar experience to the Department of Veterans Affairs where issues, particularly of PTSD attributable to service, are manifesting later in life.
The CAA was advised by the recently Retired Deputy Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Mike O’Meara who has extensive experience in administering the Psych services in Veterans Affairs, on the development of these initiatives.
Based on world experience we can assume that fifteen percent of ex- members will need some assistance with mental health issues after they cease employment with VicPol.
This would no doubt be replicated with other emergency services particularly the Ambulance Service. To say that the PSP, has seen but the tip of the iceberg, is a statement of fact. It is not unreasonable to warn the Government of a tsunami of mental health issues for ex- police that is not far away and the early intervention of the PSP may lessen the impact and cost when it arrives.
Funding is a pressing necessity with the PSP program that only has sufficient funds to see them through to mid-2018. Apart from the meagre funds of the PSP the group have received funding from the Police Association to assist with training however the financial viability of the program for the long term must be addressed relatively urgently to allow the practitioners to get on with the job rather than worrying about funding.
We are at a loss as to how PSP has been so successful to date given that they have achieved their success on such a minuscule budget. What they have achieved is testament to the dedication and ingenuity of the Retired members running the program.
Of a much more pressing necessity is the establishment of ”The Hub” facility which ideally will provide suitable accommodation for the PSP operatives and their administrative support but also house Clinicians to back up the program and act as referral for some of the more dire cases handled by the PSP.
One of the problems is the stigma either real or perceived that people suffering mental health issues and their families’ experience.
To that end our proposal is to establish a commercial coffee shop as the, “Front door”, of the services. A space people needing help can attend without fear of stigma. It is important that the Coffee shop is a commercial venture catering for the public to assist with the anonymity of people to access the resource and contribute to the operating costs of the PSP.
The PSP has identified the security of the PSP operatives as a major concern. They are not permitted to attend private dwellings and currently their only option is to meet at local coffee shops. This is proving unsatisfactory by not offering the clients appropriate confidentiality and a level of security should a client have an episode.
The concept of “The Hub” requires the ability to develop a commercial coffee shop so location is important, good public transport and car access is essential and sufficient room to provide administration for RPA PSP, other NFP Police related organisations and clinical services to support PSP.
Another aspect of, “The Hub” is to include a Police and Citizens Youth Club (PCYC) in the building. Apart from the obvious advantages in the Youth space, a PCYC Gymnasium could also help fund the operation of “The Hub”.
Allegedly many Gyms, now extremely popular with younger adults, are operated by Bikie Gangs (OMG’s). The operations of PCYC in the youth field are not compromised by the operation of the facility as a commercial Gymnasium, additionally many Police and other Emergency Service members would be more comfortable using a PCYC Gym than some of the alternative venues. Not having a member of an OMG working out beside you would be an attraction to many.
The proximity of the Gym to the PSP services will also provide the capacity for some clients to combine their gymnasium programs for the health of their body with the work on their mental health.
Bringing these organizations together will have the bonus of improving their capacity to perform their various NFP functions and also add to the anonymity of current and ex- members going to the facility to seek help or undergo treatment.
The facility has also the capacity to provide opportunities for Volunteer work which may assist some of the PSP Clients.
It will also allow for easier access to these organizations by VicPol and the Government.
The recommendation is to establish a Pilot facility so that operational mattes can be addressed and sorted. It is recommended that a Board of Directors be established to manage the facility that initially includes Police and Government representatives together with a Chair and others drawn from the broader community with commercial experience.
The whole operation would need seed funding and the application of some resources however once established the “The Hub” would be self-funding.
As the development of this concept achieves identified targets, so the program can be replicated across the State with the critical proviso of the establishment of a Community Board to operate each Hub independently. There is an important role for Local Government in the program to also provide resource support.
The initial Board would assume responsible for the overall coordination, development of the program and manage Operational standards and fiscal responsibility, coordinating all establishments and facilities operating under the banner of “The Hub”.
Ivan W.Ray Hon Secretary
Community Advocacy Alliance
by CAA | Jun 13, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
13th June 2017
The announcement by Victoria’s Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton AM APM, of his intention not to extend his present appointment throws into sharp relief the serious challenges facing policing in Victoria.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) recognizes that the performance of Victoria Police is not only the responsibility of the Chief Commissioner but is a responsibility shared across those senior personnel commanding key line functions. It is for this reason the CAA has advocated the need for a Commission of Review which will address Police Command per se, its personnel, its protocols, its priorities, response times, service delivery, the allocation of resources and all other pertinent issues including underlying philosophies.
A Review is critical to ensure that the best benefits are achieved for all Victorians from the increased allocation of Police for duty in this state which all Victorians are paying for.
A Commission of Review is the only mechanism capable of making Victorians feel and be safe again.
Such a review will ensure that any new appointee as Chief Commissioner will take over an organization that is indeed fit for purpose. Simply appointing another “skipper” to command a ship seriously in need of overhaul and in imminent danger of sinking does not deliver to Victoria or its citizens a police force which will meet the increasingly testing environment of today and tomorrow.
At the same time there is need for reform of the judiciary and the appallingly inadequate sentencing regime. Bail and parole processes are also in need of urgent review and change to reflect the reasonable expectations of the community.
Justice must not only be done – but be seen to be done.
These issues are the focus of much genuine community concern.
The CAA calls upon the Government to immediately implement a Commission of Review as these major issues need to be urgently addressed in this State.
Kelvin Glare AO APM Ivan W. Ray
Chairman CAA Secretary CAA”
by CAA | Jun 1, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
1st June 2017
If a criminal makes a victim of one person (perhaps by stealing, or perhaps by killing) then the law and its appointed officials are supposed to ensure that justice is done for that victim – right? And that does sometimes happen. But too often it does not happen, and sometimes the law actually prevents that happening.
Sometimes the evidence against the offender is not allowed to be presented by laws made, not by Parliament, but by lawyers.
Here we will mention just one aspect of this absurdity. Under the Common Law which founded our rules of evidence which are relevant to a case (whether to the prosecution or the defence of an accused) could, and should, be put before the court. In more serious cases that means put before a jury. And it should make no difference as to how that evidence was obtained.
This led to certain injustices, particularly where some form of duress was used to obtain a “confession”. We can all agree that could not stand – if for no other reason than the very strong likelihood that any admission elicited by force would not be actually true, but merely given to stop the force continuing. Simple enough.
But then the lawyers took us down the path of the dreadful “Miranda” decisions born in the USA. Yes, that haven of technicalities and complexities was brought to Australia just like movies and coca-cola. Movies, literature and news media are replete with examples of the absurdities that followed in the US, and we shake our heads at how that was allowed to happen; how did our cousins get it so wrong?
Well, we did too. We followed them. More specifically, criminal lawyers persuaded our Courts to follow them. Judges make laws sometimes, when our Parliaments are – or remain – silent.
So now in Victoria, if evidence has been obtained improperly it will probably not be allowed to be put before a jury or court. If it was obtained illegally, as opposed to merely improperly, you can bet on it being disallowed. And all this applies to material that flows from an improper or illegal act (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle).
All very noble, you might think, but the consequences are often grossly ignoble. In one case the police obtained a warrant to install a listening device in an office and thereby obtained evidence of “businessmen” bribing taxation officials. The problem was – according to these judge-made laws – they got into the office by a subterfuge; that was reckoned to be improper. So the tape recordings of the offenders’ conversations was not allowed to be put forward.
(Do not bother to ask just how a listening device, or “bug” could otherwise have been installed the office – that is not the point here.)
Should the police have carte blanche to go anywhere to search for evidence? No, or course not. But is it right that when they – or any other witnesses for that matter – come across relevant evidence by accident, or while looking for something else without proper authority, or perhaps in ignorance of the laws, should be compelled to keep that relevant evidence from a jury/
For example, if an employee of a firm suspects criminal misconduct by the employers and takes a copy of the firm’s records that show this, should that be enough to let the criminals off? Many an honest employee is prepared to “blow the whistle” but the present laws seem to work against this.
If a constable comes across some people in a car and requires them to open the car boot (perhaps for no real reason other than a general feeling of suspicion or unease) and finds a dead body (or stolen property, if you like) shouldn’t he or she be allowed to tell a court about that?
If a burglar finds a murder victim in a house, while pursuing his own illegal trade, or even hears the murder being committed, would you not want a court to know about that when the murderer is being tried?
We do not suggest that anybody who acts illegally should get off scot free just because they happen to obtain evidence of a crime by a perpetrator, but it is not logical to allow the perpetrator to go scot free just because somebody else did something wrong. The present rules often let perpetrators go free to continue their depredations – to make further victims of us all.
The law should seek to protect us from offenders, and to protect any accused person against false evidence – and should doubtless protect any us against seriously abusive conduct committed against us (and that goes for those accused of crimes, too) but the approach of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as our courts now do, ultimately works against society.
It is certainly possible to frame laws that strike a balance between the seriousness, or wilfulness, of an action, and the seriousness and relevance of evidence that flows from it.
Proponents of the present absurdity will argue that it is necessary to prevent some people (probably police officers, but not necessarily) wilfully trespassing against the rights of others in order to gain evidence. Those proponents are commonly in the camp of criminal lawyers who themselves have much to gain from that argument, or Human Rights Lawyers who object purely because they can ,but put that aside for the moment.
It cannot be denied that there have been occasions when precisely such trespasses occurred – when suspects were mistreated in some way, quite deliberately, and quite outrageously. But note that we argue that such behaviour should not go unpunished – that usual deterrents should apply. We merely argue that another offender, or accused person, should not go unpunished merely because of misconduct by somebody else.
Are we really so incapable of distinguishing between the baby and the bath water? Do we really have to let crooks go free because of the sins of others? Do we really need to slavishly adopt the flawed lawyer-and-offender-friendly rules from another jurisdiction where it is routinely abused?
Why do we allow society, ourselves, to be victimised twice – once when an offender commits a crime and again when he/she escapes punishment because of some error by somebody else?
In this current environment the Government must now be heard on the Miranda debacle and clearly articulate how they propose to Legislate change.
by CAA | Apr 16, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
16th April 2017
The laws removing a person’s right to drive are designed to improve compliance and reduce death and injury on our roads. This is a laudable and noble endeavour, however, when that noble cause also creates undesirable consequences it should be reviewed.
There is no doubt that the strong penalties imposed on drivers who break road laws have a deterrent effect, particularly on young drivers, but the current sentencing (some mandatory) needs to be discussed and reviewed. Sentencing or penalties should be about correcting behaviour not about destroying lives and making things worse for our community.
The total removal of the right to drive can be a terrible penalty with many unintended consequences that do not always achieve the desired effect. If a penalty also means losing employment this is very severe for a first offence and is counterproductive to the greater community good.
There will be argument that the transgressors deserve what they get and they made bad choices and put others at risk – perhaps there is merit in that view, but when considering the overall impact of these penalties that they can be disproportionately unfair, particularly for first or young offenders. There needs to be a pragmatic review of the system. Destroying lives is not good Justice.
We are not talking about serious, serial or rogue recidivists. They do not deserve compassion.
There is a bias in imposing penalties against those who are employed in the non-professional sphere. Licence Suspensions and Disqualification coupled with fines (often and routinely higher than for property crime and crimes of violence) may utterly destroy those who need a driver’s licence for their job.
Taking away a person’s livelihood for relatively minor offences is cruel and unjust.
The first thing that happens to most trade-orientated defendants is their job is lost and hope of future employment in their trade unlikely. Apprenticeships can be lost forever. Some professional people and workers in retail, health and hospitality can access their work by public transport but frequently a trade worker must be able to drive, not just to access their work places but to undertake their work. Mechanics who cannot test drive a car, or plumbers and carpenters who cannot carry their tools to work, are just some of a myriad of jobs that require a licence. We may, of course, add any employment where a driving licence is an employment condition.
Workers who lose their licences and their jobs lose the capacity to pay fines. Defaulting on fines can lead to imprisonment. The loss of income also means that any loans un-serviced can result in foreclosure and the probable repossession of the goods, usually their car. This inevitably leads to the downgrading or loss of any form of credit rating. The multiplier effect of penalties does not take into account that the offender still has to live and the penalty is further magnified if the driver is on the lower end of the socio-economic earnings scale. Insolvency and bankruptcy are sometimes inevitable.
In summary, penalties for low range traffic offences and for first offenders are destroying lives.
It is incongruous that penalties regularly reported in the media for crimes of violence, drug and property offences (and even some high-range driving offences) seem to be proportionally and or actually lighter than those imposed on drivers who are first-time offenders for low-range offences.
Poorly applied sentencing penalties will not lead to a reduction in offending but an escalation as perpetrators convert to victims of the system. They can feel trapped and can see the only option is to continue offending and resorting to habitual welfare, joining the unemployable.
A feeling of hopelessness and being trapped in the” Unintentional Cycle” pushes many to criminal activity and or drug abuse as an escape or an ill-advised path to a solution. The untold mental damage and perhaps self-destruction is bad enough for the individual but the impact on the community is totally underrated.
Low-level traffic offenders can go from net contributors to a net liability for the community through welfare.
Drivers need to be accountable for their non-compliance but we need to review the removal of drivers’ licences so as to allow the courts to use diversions, conditional Suspensions and Disqualifications.
It seems odd that diversions are the preferred option for the courts in criminal matters but they do not apply the same standards to traffic matters. The rationale should be identical.
To remove a licence conditionally by limiting hours of driving so that the defendant can continue to work, would seem to be a fairer outcome and the impact on their social life not unreasonable – though even that may be excessive for a first offender.
Why should we not offer Good Behaviour Bonds in traffic cases as is done in some other State jurisdictions?
Under the current system, we still have many recidivist traffic offenders. The current regime does not promote compliance to any greater degree than the alternative approach we recommend.
How many of the current crop of recidivist drivers lost their licence for their first offence and ended up in the “Unintentional Cycle”?
We call on the Government to bring about necessary changes to legislation to provide greater flexibility in sentencing for traffic offences in Victoria, making them at least compared to the criminal sentencing practices.
Ivan W.Ray
Hon. Secretary
Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Apr 7, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
7th April 2017
An organisation comprising some of the most senior police to have served Victoria will in coming weeks present to the State Government a comprehensive plan to make the state safe again for all Victorians.
Chairman of the Community Advocacy Alliance and former Chief Commissioner, Kel Glare, said the plan would address rampant violent crime, aggravated burglaries and robberies by youth, car thefts, assaults and the lack of respect for Police and the law in Victoria.
But gaining respect is a two way street. The Police and the Judiciary have to regain not just the public’s respect but also its confidence through changed practices and demonstrable performance
This tsunami of serious crime impacting the State’s citizens does not have boundaries. It hits people in their homes and on the street and in businesses. It is not discriminatory impacting across all suburbs from Sunshine to Toorak, from Frankston to Broadmeadows and throughout regional Victoria. For many people its affects are traumatising and life changing.
The plan will address a number of key issues including: –
– The urgent need for significant reform of the policing function,
– the Justice system
– and escalating violent crime among youth.
In respect to policing we will be recommending significant changes to operational procedures and structures directed at delivering a force that is much faster in its response times to public need and is more visible, accountable and engaged with the public.
In terms of the judiciary there needs to be a major shift in its accountability. It should be accountable to the community it serves. We will be recommending on changes to the bail regime including entitlement to bail, breaches to bail, remand in custody and speeding the whole bail process. Its time we put an end to the catch and release principal which clearly guides a number of jurists in this state and which has seen innocent people murdered on our streets by serial offenders released on bail and on parole.
We anticipate presenting these recommendations for a Safer Victoria to the Government and the public in coming weeks. We recognise it will not be an easy task to effect change. It will take some time but we need to start now. I have to say the support we are getting from the public for this initiative expressed in terms of emails, calls and conversations is significant.
Put simply, if we all don’t act now crime in this state will continue to spiral out of control and everyone will be less safe. The reputation of Victoria as a safe state will be trashed. I and my colleagues didn’t give years of service to policing in this state to see that happen.
by CAA | Jan 17, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
17th January 2017
There is a flaw in how we determine who are children and who are not. There are varying definitions in legislation and these variations add to confusion and impact on the proper administration of Justice and the wellbeing of young offenders and the community.
Depending which Act or set of Regulations you read, the age of a child can vary from between ten (10) and eighteen (18) years or Zero (0) to Twenty five (25) years.
For crime the definition of a child is from 10 years, the age when it is legally assumed that a young person is capable of understanding they have committed a crime, (mens rea) to 18 years.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) the Department responsible for the administration of Justice for ‘Children’, defines a Child as from zero (0) to twenty five (25) years.
These conflicting assumptions create a major Law enforcement problem and one that has a direct impact on the crime rate by overlaying a definition of child inappropriately when describing Youths and Adults. The deterrent effects and accountabilities are diminished.
There is an urgent need to redefine the definition and a Child and how convicted ‘Children’ are managed.
There is no question that a child is a person between 0 and 12 years and there is no question that the community views young people between 13 years and 18 years as a Youth, starting the fledging process. Ask the parent of a teen and they will quickly put you right.
From eighteen they are an adult. If you have the slightest doubt as to the varsity of these claims ask a thirteen year old if they are a child or a youth, and then do the same with an eighteen year old.
The Children’s Youth and Families Act 2005 defines a child as being between 10 years and 18 years at the time of committing the alleged act but under 19years before the proceedings are commenced, then they are treated as a Child.
The problem with this definition is that a,’ Child’ can be convicted for a very serious offence and can only receive a maximum of three years jail. So aside from the pittance of a sentence available to Children’s Court Magistrates a Child can be convicted at age nineteen for three years and remain in the Juvenile Detention regime until paroled or completing their sentence at twenty two years of age.
The legal fraternity go to great lengths to keep their clients in the Juvenile regime stretching the definition as far as possible. This feeds into the delays in processing young offenders by the Courts.
The definition of a child should be 0 to 12 years and Youths between 13 and 18. Where a child or youth is exposed to the Legal system their status must be determined by their age, not other extraneous influences.
At whatever position they are in the system on their birthday they are immediately promoted. This is particularly relevant for youths serving a sentence or are under some other Judicial Order or sanction, as soon as they turn 18 they are moved to an Adult Prison or placed under the judicial authority of the adult system. This must be an administrative process not judicial.
It is inconceivable that at 18 we give young adults a wide range of privileges and rights not previously afforded to them but their adulthood is ignored in the Justice system. At 18 people are given the right to vote together with a long list of rights and responsibilities as well as joining the armed services to kill or be killed for their country a very adult thing but treated and called a ‘Child’ by our juvenile justice system. The difficulty in managing adults in a Juvenile system must be a nightmare and have a negative impact on the management and rehabilitation of these adults and the younger prisoners.
The debate, often legal, over the relevant suitability of the regime that should manage an offenders punishment, is not a matter for the Courts. The Courts role is to determine an appropriate penalty not the administration of it.
The management of prisoners within the system is for Corrections Victoria and is an administrative not a judicial process.
Ivan W.Ray
Secretary
Community Advocacy Alliance
by CAA | Jan 9, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
9th January 2017
The Crime Statistics Agency Victoria reports that in the year ending September 2016, there were 543,315 offences recorded by Victoria Police, an increase of 11.6% from 487,017 offences in the previous year. This resulted in an offence rate of 8,975.4 offences per 100,000 people in Victoria, an increase of 9.4% from the year ending September 2015.
Over the past five years, the offence rate per 100,000 people in Victoria has been steadily increasing, with an average annual increase of 5.4%.
Why is it so when crime rates in every other State of Australia have been falling steadily?
The answer is obvious. Policing in Victoria has departed from the primary function of crime prevention and is trying to enforce its way out of the problem. Enforcement alone will never be sufficient to turn crime figures around.
Too much of Victoria’s crime is driven by young people who clearly have not had the moral and ethical upbringing that creates good citizens.
If this education is not being received at home the first practical place young people can be exposed to moral and ethical guidance is at school.
The Victorian Police in Schools Program that ran from 1989 to 2006 was found by a study conducted by Monash University, released in 2004, to be successful in providing the education in relation to these issues that is so very much needed now.
Further evidence that having police in schools works in preventing crime may be found in the falling crime rates in the rest of Australia where a Police in Schools Program operates in one form or another.
It is past the time when the Victorian Government and the Victoria Police should realise that the fight against crime is being lost by them largely ignoring proactive policing. Crime prevention is a basic tenet of any society.
Recent claims by the Victoria Police that they are ‘getting on top of the problem’ do not stand up to scrutiny.
Stark evidence of this is the continued tactic of offenders in deliberately crashing into police vehicles, the high number of home invasions, and the formation of community groups in some places that are formed to protect themselves, their families, their homes and their property.
It is also long past time that the Victoria Police with Government support assumed a leadership role in crime prevention.
There are several initiatives that can turn Victoria’s crime problems around.
In the longer term only the reintroduction of a Police in Schools Program can deliver the moral and ethical training that will save many of the future generation from turning to crime and anti-social behaviour. This should be an immediate first step that will make, as proven in the past, a significant difference to the safety and well-being of our society.
In the meantime young criminals must be made responsible and accountable for their actions. Young offender being repeatedly bailed after reoffending while on bail make a mockery of our criminal justice system. Clearly they have no fear of the consequences of their actions and hold the criminal justice system in contempt.
Exacerbating this issue is that these offenders are not dealt with quickly enough after being apprehended and charged. The old adage of justice delayed is justice denied is true. The denial of justice in these cases is as much a denial of justice to the many victims as it is to the offenders. Young people on remand have to wait far too long to be dealt with. The trashing of the Parkville facility is testimony enough of the need for offenders to be dealt with speedily.
There is overwhelming evidence that repeat offenders are not receiving sufficient punishment to make then think twice about reoffending. Unrealistically lenient penalties are often a badge of success among young offender’s peers rather than a real deterrent. The argument that they will be worse if incarcerated is arrant nonsense and raisers the question, worse than what?
While it is desirable to attempt to rehabilitate young offenders and give them a second chance or in special cases even a third chance, there must be a point where the protection of the public must outweigh the needs of an offender and the need to protect the offender from him or her self is paramount.
The creation of a body to oversee the performance of Magistrates and Judges so that they too are accountable for their actions would go a long way to re-establishing public faith in the criminal justice system.
Maximum penalties set by parliament through legislation are available for those convicted by courts. Magistrates and Judges obviously ignore the legislation and fail to impose realistic penalties in the vast majority of cases. The reasonable expectations of the ordinary citizen in relation to penalties fitting the crime are not being met.
Victorians, are not being adequately served by our Police Force or Government. The recent announcement of a substantial increase in police numbers, while very much welcomed and needed, will not of itself solve our current crime problems. What is required is not a radical new approach. What is needed is a return to the principles enunciated 1829 by Sir Robert Peel that remain as relevant today as when they were first promulgated. Crime prevention must come first.
It is said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expecting a different result.
Kelvin Glare AO APM
Chairman Community Advocacy Alliance
Former Chief Commissioner Victoria Police
