What’s with the Special Forces?

by CAA | Mar 11, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

11th March 2019

A question we have asked but there appears to be no rational or logical answer.
The police member in the foreground seemingly standing back from the melee is an enigma.
Having police work undercover is entirely appropriate and having police undercover during these events makes a lot of sense as they can gather intelligence to assist uniform police but the figure in the foreground is neither one thing nor the other. We see a lot of similarly attired police in the news media.
This police member is clearly not undercover, the vest, utility belt and piece he is packing is probably a bit of a giveaway, (haircuts are no longer identifiers) and he is not in uniform, so what does he do, or is this just as we suspect a fashionable drift in discipline mimicking the American Special Forces? The purpose completely eludes us.
This was a planned operation so police members should not be caught out with their blue/black suit at the cleaners.
If the Police Uniform hinders the function, whatever it is, then make the uniform suitable.
We understand members wearing overall type uniforms which in certain functions are entirely appropriate but this fifty/fifty deal is dangerous.
It is only a matter of time before a member in this ‘twilight zone’ is going to come to serious grief because either other police or even the crooks in a volatile situation may not immediately identify them correctly.
Even a Detective in a suit is more clearly defined.
A serving Officer quipped recently that recruits ‘break their necks’ to get into a uniform then once qualified, expend every effort to get out of it.
Is this a case of fashion trumps discipline?
On the other hand, is their rationale answer to this conundrum?

Submission to the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants

by CAA | Mar 5, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

26th February 2019

Your Honour
Ever since the formation of professional police forces, police have relied upon information gained from many sources. One such source is from informants, paid or otherwise. In Common Law it was once an offence of ‘Misprision of Felony’ to fail to report a felony if one knew the felony had been committed and by whom. The basis of this offence was obviously that every citizen has a civic duty to preserve the law. That this duty applies even to lawyers except where lawyer client privilege exists is self-evident.
The offence of ‘misprision of felony’ was abolished in Victoria. With some exceptions, when it was active it consisted of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. In a number of jurisdictions, the offence has been replaced by a statutory offence. No corresponding statutory offence has been legislated in Victoria.
It is submitted the need for such a statutory offence is essential to the maintenance of law and order in Victoria.
In the case of Lawyer “X,” or Victoria Police Informant 3838, and now allegedly other lawyers, there may have been blatant breaches of lawyer client privilege. It must be noted that, if so, it was the lawyers who acted improperly and 3838 has since been rightly disbarred as a consequence.
The High Court described police use of Informer 3838 as reprehensible conduct which involved sanctioning “atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer”. However, what the High Court did not say was that the Victoria Police had acted illegally. Nor did the High Court specify what the ‘atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer’ were, other than by inference, using 3838 as a paid informer.
The Court also found that lawyer 3838 had engaged in a “fundamental and appalling breach” of her obligations as a barrister.
If police had acted unlawfully one could reasonably expect that the High Court would have so said.
It is submitted that legislative clarity is required in relation to police informers so that everyone knows what they can do and what they cannot. Clear legislative guidelines will prevent the difficulties relating to 3838 and others from arising again. In the Royal Commission making recommendations it is urged that there does not arise the ‘law of unintended consequences’.
Victoria has had a “Crime Stoppers” program since 1987. The Program receives information from the public, sometimes anonymously and sometimes through identified persons, with many of the latter paid for their information. Between 1987 and 2017 information gained through Crime Stoppers resulted in 871,755 contacts, 20,275 arrests, 80,725 charges laid and $203 million in contraband seized. It is clear that the ability of police to receive information and intelligence is, in part, the lifeblood of combatting crime.
It is submitted that any recommendations regarding police use of informers must not be at the expense of limiting such an effective weapon against crime as Crime Stoppers. To do so would be unconscionable.
That the conduct of the Victoria Police was most unwise cannot be disputed. Those involved at the highest levels ought to have known better, at least to the extent of assuring themselves that they were not sanctioning breaches of lawyer client privilege. Where no such privilege applied, why should police not have gained as much information about very serious crimes, including murders and extensive drug trafficking, as possible? Lawyers are also citizens.
The CAA would, with respect, reserve the right to make further submissions as and when appropriate in our view, as the Royal Commission proceeds.
Submitted by and on behalf of;
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc.
PO Box 206
Kilsyth 3137
Email: Info@caainc.org.au
Web: caainc.org.au

Kelvin Glare AO APM
Executive Chairman CAA
Ivan W Ray
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Secretary CAA

G-TAG A new paradigm in community safety

by CAA | Feb 25, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

 – The G-Tag Vehicle Global Positioning System will

Save Lives

Reduce crime

Cost positive and

Make Victoria a leader as an innovative State.

Introduction

For most people, their car is their most important and valued asset, and to have it stolen is devastating. However, motor cars, whether stolen or not, are also commonly associated with crimes including, hit-and-run, robbery, drugs, rape, murder and domestic violence and now terrorism.

The relatively new experience of motor vehicles being used as a weapon either against Police or as a weapon of mass destruction, terror-related or not, is a new phenomenon. The introduction of this new level of violence In the West has brought a new urgency to the G-Tag.

The G-Tag, when fully implemented, is the only stratagem that will stop vehicles being used as weapons.

The Bourke Street massacre should be justification alone to introduce the G-Tag, and unless you live under a rock, we know that it will only be a matter of time before we experience the devastation of a truck or car bombs as is all too common elsewhere in the world. The possibility of IS fighters and or their children returning to Australia from these areas will no doubt bring with it skills used in that place.

The multiple killings, countless injuries, millions of dollars of theft and massive damage bills caused because current legislation is focused exclusively on the driver, not the vehicle and until that changes the vehicles and their drivers will continue to wreak havoc.

The most creative solution dreamed up thus far by Government and police in Melbourne is strategically placed bollards and reinforced concrete planters. A little underwhelming. They will create safe areas (behind their protection and then only from cars), but the vulnerability of people will then be focused on the areas unable to be protected including every intersection in Melbourne at peak pedestrian times when pedestrians in large numbers cross are exposed.

There were 4,567,314 vehicles (ABS Data and includes all vehicles) Registered in Victoria in 2015 – a vast and valuable state asset that needs to be protected.

The traditional view that the risks posed by the motor car should be managed by legislation which focuses on the driver, clearly has had only limited success.

– To further reduce the risks, we need to focus on the vehicle.

The best way to reduce any crime is to increase in the perpetrators’ mind the likelihood that they will get caught – penalties in themselves have limited impact because the perpetrator does not commit the act to get caught and never expects to get caught.

When the probability of being caught fails to dissuade, we need the ability to intervene to minimise the impact of the behaviour.

Authorities (Police) should be able to safely slow down or stop particular vehicles in the interests of public safety and law–enforcement

Without diminishing the current Law and Order response there is a need to think through and discuss alternatives – that alternative is the vehicle.

GPS Tracking

GPS tracking is widely used in the community, the devices record and re-transmit its own location to a satellite-based global positioning system.  These re-transmitted signals allows the identification of the vehicle, the vehicles location and the route it has and is taking. It also communicates the vehicle speed.

That route can be recorded for days or weeks therefore capable of identifying which vehicle was driven in a particular location at a previous time. This ability will allow Police to identify the vehicle used in crime and as important as the current location of the vehicle is the historical routes the vehicle has taken which perhaps have more investigative value.

An example and there are many, would be a drive-by shooting in the early hours. Witnesses can usually supply time of the shots, with a G-Tag the police could identify which vehicles were driven in that location at the time given.

Central to this proposal will be the fitting of tracking devices to every vehicle, and although this forms part of the first stage of this proposal, it needs to be seen through the prism of advantages to the community, a safety and Crime Prevention/Minimisation strategy, albeit that an economic case may be produced for the system raising alternative revenue streams for the Government.

Setting the case for part one of this proposal – the G-Tag

The advantages of developing a GPS locating system, or G-Tag, for the entire Victorian road fleet will be no small feat; however the return will be enormous.

1. Theft of Motor vehicles and machinery –

With a G-Tag stolen vehicles can be located quickly, the focus is on the property, not the perpetrator, however that will lead to perpetrators being detected rapidly. This will lead to a reduction in insurance costs. G-Tags. This would also reduce the demand on Police time and assist in arresting perpetrators.

G-Tags will influence the perpetrators knowing the chances of getting caught have escalated and may dissuade many would-be’s.

In Australia 49 vehicles a week are stolen and processed for scrap metal – one in four cars stolen are never recovered – $103 Million estimated value of cars never recovered.  There are expected to be 5 million cars on Australian roads that do not have immobilising technology. (Source -National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.).

In Victoria, 14366 vehicle thefts were reported according to VicPol statistics – in 2014. In 2015 that number increased to 17090, an increase of 19%. The National average of vehicles not recovered is 31%,(This figure could be substantially higher when including vehicles recovered damaged beyond repair – burnt out etc.) so extrapolating those figures to Victoria, in excess of 5000 vehicles disappear every year, or nearly 100 every week.

What the statistics do not show is the hardship caused, and the danger posed to the community

2. Community safety – a G-Tag will assist

1. Victims of Domestic violence-. They can be better protected by tagging perpetrators vehicles in the G-Tag system to warn Police of the perpetrator heading toward the victim. The use of postcodes to quarantine victims will enable Police to intervene when postcode boundaries are crossed by perpetrators breaching a Family Violence Orders alerting Police to reduce the risk to the victim.
2. Missing Persons-. G-Tags can locate vehicles of missing persons before self-harm. Suicidal victims are generally found after their demise when the family have contacted Police over concerns but Police driving around searching every nook and cranny has historically been demonstrated as ineffective and an utter waste of time.

G-Tags will save lives with the chance of getting professional help to a desperate person.

For a variety of reasons, people disappear in their cars, from murder victims to abductions to the mentally ill. To be able to locate their car using G-Tag will lead to interventions that will save lives.

1. Rural application- The application in Rural and remote Victoria is very sound, consider being able to locate a tractor on a large remote property, or a driver overdue to destinations particularly in times of natural disaster. This will also reduce the number of unnecessary searches.

The applications of G-Tag technology can be extended to include watercraft and recreational vehicles.

1. Technology instead of manpower. The thousands of man hours expended by emergency services, particularly Police, can be dramatically reduced in multiple circumstances by the G-Tag Policing will become more efficient and effective, reducing pressure on Police resources.

1. Criminal activity –
2. Terrorism Investigations would have the advantage of monitoring vehicles with G-Tag’s without intrusion to better understand the risks posed by suspects.

The use of vehicles as a weapon in Terrorism is commonplace in the current war zones and is likely to appear in Australia when Daesh fighters and or their families return bringing that knowledge with them.

1. Criminal Behaviour –There is a current spate of home invasions where perpetrators physically confront victims in their homes by forced entry to gain access to keys to steal high-end motor vehicles. This type of activity is on the rise; there is a substantial risk that serious harm if not the death of a victim. The ability to track these vehicles by G-Tag and immobilise them is very attractive to the victims and Police.
2. Illicit Drugs must be transported in vehicles at some stage. Access to G-Tag technology will provide invaluable assistance in managing the importation and trafficking of drugs.

1. Hoon drivers –can be monitored and removed from our roads. Known hoons’ vehicles can be tagged in the G-Tag system and an alarm indicating when like tagged vehicles are identified by the system to be congregating can give Police the opportunity to intervene before the dangers escalate.

1. Police Pursuits – This technology virtually eliminates the need for pursuit and the disabling of the car by G-Tag reduces risk to the Community, the Police and even the offender.

1. Emergency vehicles – can easily and reliably be located and managed when civil emergencies occur. g. incident managers could recognise the precise locations of fire appliances during bushfire outbreaks, to direct them to where they are most needed – or away from impending danger.
2. Arial surveillance – Currently undertaken by the Police Airwing, there are limitations with availability and response times. The G-Tag will not replace the need for Arial Surveillance as a Policing tool but the G-Tag will significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Air Wing reducing operating costs.

1. Legal implications – The data recorded in the G-Tag system has evidentiary value as does E-Tags and Security Cameras; however the potential for the improved data available from G-Tags will provide strong data of evidentiary value for Prosecution and Defence in equal benefit, further improving our judicial system.

Setting the case for Part 2 of this proposal using G-Tag.

The first part of this proposal using a converted E-Tag’s will only reach a percentage of the Victorian fleet and unless a case can be presented for voluntary take up of G-Tags based on the E-Tag system the limitations although not totally limiting will reduce the overall potential of the program. The advantage of converting E-Tags to G-Tags will ensure a rapid introduction of the program.

Part 2 is the introduction of more sophisticated G-Tag’s (technology is currently available) that are hard-wired into the vehicle’s electronics and fitted where they cannot be easily removed or interfered with. This technology adds a new layer where the vehicle’s electronics can be activated remotely to put the vehicle into a limp-home mode (reducing its top speed to 80KPH) before activating the engine immobiliser to halt the vehicle. The only limitations will be that certain vehicles do not have the limp home mode and would be stopped at a safe place.

The upgraded G-Tags would need to be fitted to all new vehicles including trucks pre-delivery and fitted to all cars as part of the roadworthy process. A moratorium would be required to set a reasonable time that all vehicles must comply, similar to other safety initiatives including seat belt introduction.

Stage 2 will allow Police to intervene to stop the commission or continuance of a crime the primary role of Police.

The issue of re-establishing the functionality of the vehicle when recovered, or is no longer a threat, is again a technical issue that should not prove insurmountable. If it can be switched off, it can be switched on; it is just a matter of protocols.

The cost debate

There is a cost, but as this is innovation the technology development costs of G-Tag would be well offset by marketing the initiative interstate and overseas. A fee for service arrangement, assisting set up and a fee for intellectual property would generate substantial income.

Part of the development costs could be covered by the Insurance Industry and TAC, who both stand to gain considerably. There would be nominal cost recovery from the users in the installation of a device into the existing fleet – manufacturers would be required to fit the device pre-delivery on all new vehicles.

An offset to the toll operator’s contribution will be the income generated when tracking devices are fitted to the Victorian fleet to include the E-Tag function in the G-Tag effectively the E-Tag would be redundant.

With savings achieved to the State economy, the overall cost will be well offset. Recurring costs would be in part recovered by beneficiaries, namely Insurance companies, Toll operators, TAC and the user.

Car owners will have to bear some costs, subsidised for Welfare recipients but the cost should not be prohibitive somewhere under $200.

The proposal to introduce pay as you use the system for registration, third party and comprehensive insurance will contribute to the setup and recurring cost of the system. The system could therefore potentially protect innocent victims from financial hardship as a result of vehicle damage – Potentially the initiative could be cost positive.

Technology

Anybody who owns a smartphone or has a Satellite navigation device is acutely aware of the power and application of technology.

Currently advertised on the internet for $35 is a tracking device that can be attached to a vehicle and linked to a smartphone. The technology exists and is small and relatively cheap.

With the increasing sophistication of motor vehicles and their reliance on computers to manage their engines, an opportunity exists to intervene in a vehicle’s performance. A large part (and increasing) of the Victorian fleet are vehicles that have an  inbuilt  “Limp Home Mode” in their computer systems designed, to protect the engine from further damage should a fault be detected

It is a matter of connecting the dots. If we can identify a vehicle using GPS locating technology by a G-Tag, we only need to develop a mechanism to access the vehicle’s computer via the G-Tag to activate the “Limp Home Mode” or the vehicles,” Immobilisation technology”.  A SIM card is the solution.

By designing and fitting an after-market, G-Tag to attached to the electronics of the vehicle, the function of the vehicle can be managed. The power supply for the G-Tag is then secured for the life of the vehicle. The simplest method to communicate with the vehicle electronics is by a SIM card in the device using the mobile network to communicate with the car’s computer.

The Issue of Privacy

In the 1980s there was a very vocal minority who saw themselves as the keepers of our privacy objecting to the installation of the eight CCTV cameras for a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Melbourne. They vocalised on the prying eyes and the abuse that would occur should the cameras not be removed immediately the conference was finished- “It’s a Police State”, was the mantra of the group.

Their plaintive cries are now fairly humorous when we look around at the number of cameras that watch us daily but there is no community concern as it has been demonstrated that they serve the greater good, and law-abiding citizens do not care if they are watched.  Indeed, governments actively encourage wider use of CCTV in public places and the take-up of private CCTV systems – including those monitoring public spaces – is impressive.

This initiative has a distinct advantage over CCTV cameras. The Cameras have a deterrent effect and assist with identifying perpetrators but they cannot stop or prevent the continuation of a crime – the G-Tag can.

For anybody worried about the movement of their vehicle being monitored then realise there are over 5 million vehicles in Victoria so nobody would have the time the resources or the interest to monitor every vehicle – it will be enough just monitoring vehicle that is of particular interest- law-abiding citizens hide in the crowd.

-there is no reason to hide if you are lawful.

Impact on Judicial processes.

The implementation of this system will provide the Judiciary with an alternative in the sentencing of offenders particularly for the less serious traffic infringements and in some case, other criminal activity.
Currently, lives are ruined financially and otherwise by fines and driving restrictions that cause offenders to lose employment and the capacity to pay fines and in this double jeopardy can ruin many young people’s lives. Correcting bad behaviour by adverse outcomes destroys the chance of future compliance and does not lead to future compliance but can in desperation lead particularly young people towards crime and in desperation drugs to escape what they see as a hopeless situation from which they see no escape.

The G-Tag system can be used to manage the use of a vehicle to certain roads and or times to allow Offenders to continue in employment, therefore, enabling them to pay the fines but still having their mobility curtailed dramatically to serve as a punishment.

We are not suggesting this facility become run of the mill but for cases where a driver may exceed .05 after a reading shows residual alcohol or drugs in the low range. Or where breaches of Licence offences and registration matters can be managed without ruining lives.

The increase in penalty recovery would justify offenders retaining employment and avoid forcing people onto welfare and damaging the States productivity.

System Security

There will need to be legislation that includes safeguards for privacy and safeguards against tampering with the system either the physical equipment or any signal emitted.

One of the best securities of the privacy of individuals is the overall size of the Victorian fleet. The agency monitoring the data will be necessarily focused on the important data, and the average law-abiding citizen will only be exposed to the system when they are a victim.

Conclusion

The G-Tag is an “out there” proposal, but there is a myriad far more extreme ideas that once seemed farfetched that are now accepted as the mainstream norm, world wide web, television and the telephone!

Anybody who has a mobile phone, shops at a supermarket or a volume traders store, has interaction with any political organisation, uses the internet, uses a financial institution, has an interaction with Health or Education systems and takes out Insurance, is part of the workforce or reliant on welfare has more detail of their lives recorded, trolled through and assessed than we care to think about but it is a price we are prepared to pay for convenience and quality of life.

We now accept security cameras as a way of life as well as the dreaded speed cameras, an acceptable inconvenience that serves the greater good.

It will take leadership and innovative thought to implement this proposal; however the advantages to the community makes it a worthwhile project.

Our Prime Minister calls for Innovation – this is an innovation that will save lives.

“I have worked hard to own my car, and if it gets stolen, I would be delighted that it could be located and disabled as soon as it is reported (minimising damage to it). It would be a bonus that the low life that did it was caught.” A view that would be shared by the overwhelming majority of Victorians.

Recommendation

That a working party be established by Government to draft the legislation to establish a G-Tag Authority with the role of developing the technology and designing the model for the ongoing management and operation of the system.

Ivan W. Ray

Secretary

Community Advocacy Alliance

A discussion we need to have?

by CAA | Feb 10, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

10th February 2019
Our legal system has many flaws but the one that gets no attention is the one that we should be seriously discussing and is probably the easiest to fix.
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has long advocated for the abolition of Committal Hearings for indictable offences. Successfully removed from other jurisdictions with no adverse consequences, Victoria needs to do the same.
From a bygone era (before the introduction of the hand up brief), the Committal Hearing process does not offer defendants any more protection and simply puts a step in the process that is detrimental to the offender, adds additional trauma for victims and complicates the legal system as a whole.
If somebody is charged by Police with an Indictable Offence (a serious offence that must go for trial and cannot be heard by a magistrate), there are a number of steps that the evidence must be processed through and Committal proceedings are unnecessary.
Unless the offender is arrested and charged the evidence (often referred to as the brief) must first be appraised by a senior member of the Police Force independent of the investigators to ‘approve’ the prosecution.
A copy of all the evidence against an accused person is provided to that person before any court proceedings. The ‘Hand Up Brief’ details all the evidence that the prosecution has against the accused. Effectively duplicating one of the original purposes for a Committal Hearing by ensuring the accused is aware of the totality of the accusations against them and the evidence that would be presented at a trial to support the charges, giving them ample opportunity to prepare a defence to the allegations.
Many of these committals run for days or weeks at enormous cost to the public purse as many accused persons receive legal aid. Committals often cost in real terms thousands of dollars and on that basis alone, they would fail any cost benefit analysis.
In Victoria almost all of defendants that are presented for a committal are committed for trial. If a defendant is discharged after a committal it is very unlikely the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) would proceed with a trial although a direct presentment is possible.
Once a defendant is committed for trial the Police are no longer the informants but purely a witnesses that can be called upon to give evidence if a trial proceeds. The role of informant and prosecutor transfers to the OPP who on assessing all the evidence will decide whether the matter will proceed to trial. If, based on the evidence, there is a likelihood that a trial is unlikely to achieve a conviction the OPP can decide not to proceed. The OPP has other considerations before a trial proceeds. A safety check valve superior to a Committal against wrongful prosecution.
There are several issues that should encourage that the Committal Process to be assigned to history.
Detention of accused on remand. The abolition of the Committal process will mean that remanded prisoners will not be held until a Committal Hearing can be scheduled, then again from when the Committal hearing is decided until their trial date. This will alleviate overcrowding in the prison system and Police cells. It is also much better for the accused who will spend much less time on remand.
Court Backlogs. This will substantially reduce the demand on Magistrates so that all Magistrates Court matters can by processed much more quickly. Relatively simple matters can take months and months to be dealt with and that does not serve the community well.
Cost savings. Apart from the obvious savings to the Courts, Police and Corrections budgets, one of the most important savings is to the Legal Aid budget. A corner stone of our legal system that ensures every person is properly represented. The savings can be put to expanding the Legal Aid function to represent victims.
There has been the occasion when a question has arisen over the innocence of a convicted criminal and that matter is dealt with as it should be by the Appeal process to ensure the integrity of our legal system. It is highly likely that each of these questionable matters went through our legal system including Committal proceedings so thereof it would have made no difference to the outcome had the Committal process not existed.
We encourage debate on this matter but hasten to add that the arguments put forward by the Legal Profession need to be viewed in the context of their pecuniary interests which they are unlikely to declare.

Police structural failure exposed

by CAA | Jan 26, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

26th January 2019

Comments that expose the failure.
“…to ensure that decision making is devolved, as a matter of principle and as far as possible to the level closest to those who implement the decisions…”
“…it is both practical and desirable to move decision making to a lower level closer to the issues…”
“…moving operational decision making closer to the coal face with accountabilities and performance based management…”
Quotes attributable to the same author?
No, the first is from the recommendations on accountability in the report, Task Force Deliver conducted by Neil Comrie AO APM into the Victoria Police and published in January 2019 and the second is from Plan 100.1. ‘Addressing Law and Order for all Victorians” produced by the Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) in 2018. The third is from the original Plan 100 published by the CAA in 2017 in response to the crime tsunami in Victoria.
The similarity in the authors is that they are former experienced executive police and that they have identified an issue independently. The concept of devolution of decision making in Victoria Police as it currently stands requires an urgent adjustment particularly given how this fundamental organisational flaw is manifesting in serious failures in governance currently being highlighted.
It is essential that decisions are made for an organisation like Victoria Police at the place closest to the action, or where “the rubber hits the road”. Police Executives in an office removed from the community no matter how intelligent cannot hope to understand the complexities of policing particular communities and the variabilities by demographics and geography that the Police at a local level possess. These variabilities often exist within a Police sub district far removed from the executives and only within the knowledge of the local police. The much maligned ‘local knowledge’ is a fundamental tool of policing.
The other problem that has evolved in the structure of the Victoria Police executive is their number and span of control. With forty-seven executive Officers the overlapping of spans of control are inevitable and detract from efficient and competent decision making
It is unavoidable that the executive decision making will be hindered having to consider peers responsibilities.
The overlapping spans of control also lead to delayed decisions, creating uncertainty as to who makes what decision, and even more critically when a decision is made who is accountable for it.
These structural flaws are most felt by the subordinates responsible for actioning decisions.
New South Wales by comparison has about twenty seven executives doing ostensibly the same job as their forty seven counterparts in Victoria. It is unavoidable with that number in Victoria that work will increase to fill the allotted resource space, a major contributor to creating a centralist organisation.
Victoria Police are not the first and will not be the last to suffer as a result of following a structural design proffered by the purveyors of fashions in management strategies rather than pragmatism. The CAA Board members from the corporate sector cite examples of exactly what has happened to Victoria Police as happening in large commercial corporations. However, the advantage of the Corporations is that a corporate failure, like structure, is addressed where in VicPol it has simply been allowed to continue unchallenged for twenty years.
In New South Wales where the Police corporate structure we now have was imported from, they recognised the folly of this centralist structure some time ago and have incrementally moved back towards the structure that previously existed. Devolving decision making in the process.
When the Officers in charge of Police Stations in Victoria lost control of their ability to manage the Station Roster, that fundamental role shift should have alerted the Force that there was a problem evolving. The Station Commanders no longer had control over their operation; decision making had been moved up the chain away from the coal face as had accountability and responsibility.
The structural imbalance evident in the Victoria Police must be addresses with urgency if the organization is to operate effectively and efficiently.

Another Case for the Victims

by CAA | Jan 23, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

23rd January 2019

The groundbreaking initiatives announced by the Andrews Government today, in relation to Victims, must be applauded and the government righty congratulated. Although the devil may be in the implementation it is truly a watershed moments for Victims and well overdue.
This announcement is strongly supported by the CAA. We acknowledge that these are recommendations yet to be adopted but they were made at the Government’s behest so we are confident they will be adopted.

The CAA published its position on the abhorrent treatment of Victim’s of crime in this State and presented a number of recommendations that could improve the treatment of Victims.
The paper, ‘A case for Victims’, first published in April 2018 can be found at
https://caainc.org.au/a-case-for-the-victims/ and addresses a number of the initiatives announced by Government.

It would be perhaps advantageous that the Government revisit this paper in light of the recommendations before it.

The government setting up another quango as the recovery of debt function is the only thing we pass comment on, not criticism.

The Tax Office and the Sheriff’s Office have the existing mechanism to play the long game in debt recovery and a new body may not be necessary.

Not covered in our original article the legislation required to establish much of the Victim support function must include a provision whereby bankruptcy cannot extinguish the debt. That a debt follows a convicted criminal until paid even after they have served any penalty. The debt will be a reminder of the folly of crime and act as a major deterrent.
The arguments that will be proffered will be focused on the welfare of the perpetrator’s ability to reform but that is cold comfort to many victims that never have their life returned.

The last thing we, and any victim, would want to see is a criminal subsequent to an Order accumulating wealth by either legal means or otherwise and avoiding the compensation. That is why we favour to Tax Office as the recovery agency.

Given the history of our Judiciary, it would be highly desirable that there are legislative changes that realign the role of the Victim in the legal process so that compassion and most importantly respect is afforded to all victims.

Reprehensible Conduct or A Reprehensible Culture?

by CAA | Jan 18, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

18th January 2019′

We at CAA have condemned the absence of integrity within government activities here in Victoria, and called for integrity to be made a central component in every public action undertaken on our behalf.
It has now been officially reported that Victoria Police acted unethically (without integrity) in respect of driver breath testing, over many years.
We already knew the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) had paid Vicpol for a contracted number of breath tests to be carried out, and Vicpol had admitted the contract had not been met. Vicpol then contracted to carry out even more breath tests.
We have been told the police unethical conduct was not criminal – but that judgement and assurance seem to themselves be completely lacking in honesty and integrity. In short, we are being snowed; to mix the metaphor, this was a whitewash!
If there has been deliberate falsification of figures to obtain a result closer to a contracted, and paid for result, it seems to a fraud – the obtaining of property (money) by deceit. Consider all the disclosed facts, and also consider that it does not matter that those carrying out the falsifications do not benefit personally.
On the disclosed material it appears there has been a systematic course of conduct, which senior officials knew about, or ought to have known about, to falsify official figures to benefit Vicpol and gain kudos for senior personnel within it.
A bit like dodgy crime statistics but actually more serious.
Vicpol appears to have scrutinised and accepted the official report on falsification of the breath test figures. We suggest that any half-competent police officer would have put two and two together and deduced there was a need for a full-blown criminal investigation into the whole sorry saga.
But only if there is, in the scrutinising, reporting, and consideration processes, genuine and honest concern for integrity – as opposed to the desire to put the saga out of sight and out of mind.
Vicpol stands condemned by the High Court of Australia as having engaged in “reprehensible conduct”. This latest saga falls even more squarely within that description.
We are reminded of the ongoing apparent attempts to sweep aside the “Red Shirts Rort” affair, first by doing nothing (until forced to act by public pressure), then by treating those involved by different standards, then by apparently “dragging the chain” – unduly delaying the process of the law.
Somebody at Police Headquarters – or perhaps Spring Street – has to take responsibility for the culture which has brought about a widespread collapse of ethics and integrity, and disregard for the oath of office taken by every police officer.
CAA believes Vicpol has succumbed to a culture of management by fear, where internal expressions of concern regarding deficient policies are ruthlessly suppressed and/or punished. We had originally advocated for a review of VicPol. We came to that conclusion before the plethora of systemic failures started to emerge. It would not surprise us that there are more to come.
A Royal Commission to expose the organisation’s deficiencies and reprehensible culture – and how this culture has been allowed to flourish – may be the only way to put Vicpol on the right path once again.
We have previously noted the unwillingness of IBAC (in effect a standing royal commission) to do its job properly, and that the body inquiring into the police informer 3838 scandal is sadly too constrained to do the job properly.
Enough of the whitewash and coverup.

Reprehensible Police Conduct in Context

by CAA | Jan 16, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

16th January 2019

Amidst all the publicity about what the High Court has ruled as “reprehensible conduct” by Victoria Police a few other points should be made clear.
Firstly, the “reprehensible conduct” attributed by the Court to the whole organisation seems actually to be the responsibility of a few members – i.e. we should not condemn the whole body.
Secondly, the standard of conduct expected of the organisation’s members derives from the top; the standard is shown by example and precept, on a continuing basis. The organisation’s culture provides the setting in which certain conduct is either accepted or rejected.
So it might be seen – but must surely be condemned by all – that culturally the police could supinely turn a blind eye to the infamous Red Shirts Rort exposed by the media and then the Ombudsman over so many months, so long ago. There can be no excuse whatsoever for the police leadership to have done so little so late, about that particularly egregious abuse of public office.
Eventually, of course, action was taken; some minor players were publicly humiliated, arrested, processed and obvious charges seemed to be imminent. So much activity to so little purpose?
Then we had an election and then the dazzling spectacle of “reprehensible conduct” being brought before a Royal Commission. Have we forgotten the Reprehensible Red Shirts Rort? So much to look at that we might be forgiven for overlooking (or even forgetting?) that the principal culprits in that scandalous conduct have been shielded by police leaders.
Too little, too late, too slowly and too deferentially. What happened to the principle so strongly endorsed by the High Court – the principle that the police are there to uphold the law without fear or favour, malice or ill-will? What happened to equality before the law?
If the Royal Commission is to achieve anything of concrete value to Victorians it should inquire into how this defective culture came into existence, to apparently flourish, and to be supported from the very quarters which benefit from this Red Shirts Rort scandal.
The Community Advocacy Alliance has spoken out about this affair, and publicly urged that it be concluded promptly – preferably without the potential for bringing about several by-elections. There were, and are, few genuine complicating factors in reaching that conclusion.
There is a lack of will. Lack of will to take initial action, and lack of will carry out a sworn duty.
British folk talk of their “PC’s” with respect. In Victoria, PC seems to mean only “politically correct”. CAA contends there is far too much Victorian PC about, and too little attention being given to the reformation of our own Police Culture.

The art of the vanishing victim

by CAA | Jan 9, 2019 | Library, Uncategorized

9th January 2019

Since 2014 the Crime Statistics Agency (CSA)  has been responsible for the public presentation of data based on crime statistics collected by Victoria Police.

Within that data is a section on victims of crime who have been and are referred to by the CSA as “Unique Victims” (as recently as in their 2018 Annual Report).

At various times I have attempted to ascertain the exact definition of “unique victim” but it has been difficult to pin down – even more so because the definition appears to change depending on who you ask, when you ask and in relation to which types of crimes you ask.

In the past it has been variously explained as being the number of individual persons or companies who became victims of one or more crimes in a given financial year.

Those victims, should they be unfortunate enough to be the victim of three separate unrelated criminal offences at three different times of the year would be recorded as one “unique victim.” Not a victim three times.

In the December 2018 release from the CSA there is a description of how a victim of multiple crimes arising from the one incident is counted. Quite simply, the ‘most serious’ crime is the recorded offence.

By this method, a rape victim who is robbed at knifepoint must be recorded as a victim of only one of those offences. As both are serious indictable offences within the ‘Crimes Act 1958’ and both carry a maximum 25 years imprisonment. I am unaware which offence would be recorded and whether there is consistency in which might, or should, be recorded. It seems quite obvious, as in the CSA information on Victim reports in December 2018, that whichever is considered to be the lesser offence(s) is/are simply not recorded against that victim or perhaps at all. If these offences are recorded, it is certainly not stated.

The same document also outlines how offences that occur over time are recorded. It seems that, for example, if you were a victim of frauds which occurred over a period of months and which was processed by police on one report, as is often the case, you are recorded as a victim of one offence rather than multiple criminal offences.

Bad enough that there is always more than one victim for every crime and that those victims cannot be counted accurately enough to be included in statistics. (Within 72 hours of the Bourke Street tragedy of January 2017, more than 1,700 people had called the Victims of Crime Help Line for assistance).

Coupled with the manner in which victims are actually counted, one wonders how many victims of crime there really are in this State and whether the manner by which their numbers are determined is the best and most accurate way to inform interested Victorians.

Perhaps we might be better served simply being told of each and every single crime in each and every crime report taken by police.

At least then we might see the forest for the trees.

Greg Davies APM.

Lose your licence lose your life…………

by CAA | Dec 25, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized

The laws removing a person’s right to drive are designed to improve compliance and reduce death and injury on our roads. This is a laudable and noble endeavour; however when that noble cause also creates undesirable consequences, it should be reviewed.

There is no doubt that the strong penalties imposed on drivers who break road laws have a deterrent effect, particularly on young drivers, but the current sentencing (some mandatory) needs to be discussed and reviewed. Sentencing or penalties should be about correcting behaviour not about destroying lives and making things worse for our community.

The total removal of the right to drive can be a terrible penalty with many unintended consequences that do not always achieve the desired effect. If a penalty also means losing employment, this is very severe for a first offence and is counterproductive to the greater community good.

There will be an argument that the transgressors deserve what they get and they made bad choices and put others at risk – perhaps there is merit in that view, but when considering the overall impact of these penalties that they can be disproportionately unfair, particularly for first or young offenders. There needs to be a pragmatic review of the system. Destroying lives is not good Justice.

We are not talking about dangerous, serial or rogue recidivists. They do not deserve compassion.

There is a bias in imposing penalties against those who are employed in the non-professional sphere. Licence Suspensions and Disqualification coupled with fines (often and routinely higher than for property crime and crimes of violence) may utterly destroy those who need a driver’s licence for their job.

Taking away a person’s livelihood for relatively minor offences is cruel and unjust.

The first thing that happens to most trade-orientated defendants is their job is lost and hope of employment in their trade unlikely. Apprenticeships can be lost forever. Some professional people and workers in retail, health and hospitality can access their work by public transport but frequently a  trade worker must be able to drive,  not just to access their workplaces but to undertake their work. Mechanics who cannot test drive a car, or plumbers and carpenters who cannot carry their tools to work, are just some of a myriad of jobs that require a licence. We may, of course, add any employment where a driving licence is an employment condition.

Workers who lose their licences and their jobs lose the capacity to pay fines. Defaulting on penalties can lead to imprisonment. The loss of income also means that any loans un-serviced can result in foreclosure and the probable repossession of the goods, usually their car. This inevitably leads to the downgrading or loss of any form of credit rating. The multiplication effect of penalties does not take into account that the offender still has to live and the penalty is further magnified if the driver is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Insolvency and bankruptcy are sometimes inevitable.

In summary, penalties for low range traffic offences and first offenders are destroying lives.

It is incongruous that penalties regularly reported in the media for crimes of violence, drug and property offences (and even some high-range driving offences) seem to be proportionally and sometimes lighter than those imposed on drivers who are first-time offenders for low-range offences.

Poorly applied sentencing penalties will not lead to a reduction in offending, but an escalation as perpetrators convert to victims of the system. They can feel trapped and can see only the option of repeat offending, or resorting to habitual welfare, joining the unemployable.

A feeling of hopelessness and being trapped in the” Unintentional Cycle” pushes many to criminal activity and or drug abuse as an escape or an ill-advised path to a solution. The untold mental damage and perhaps self-destruction is bad enough for the individual but the impact on the community is underrated.

Low-level traffic offenders can go from net contributors to a net liability for the community through welfare.

Drivers need to be accountable for their non-compliance, but we need to review the removal of drivers’  licences to allow the courts to use diversions, conditional Suspensions and Disqualifications.

It seems odd that diversion is the preferred option for the courts in criminal matters, but they do not apply the same standards to traffic matters.  The rationale should be identical.

To remove a licence conditionally by limiting hours of driving so that the defendant can continue to work, would seem to be a fairer outcome and the impact on their social life not unreasonable – though even that may be excessive for a first offender.

Why should we not offer  Good Behaviour Bonds in traffic cases as is done in some other State jurisdictions?

Under the current system, we still have many recidivist traffic offenders. The current regime does not promote compliance to any higher degree than the alternative approach we recommend.

How many of the current crop of recidivist drivers lost their licence for their first offence and ended up in the “Unintentional Cycle”?

We call on the Government to bring about necessary changes to legislation to provide greater flexibility in sentencing for traffic offences in Victoria, making them at least comparative to the criminal sentencing practices.

Ivan W.Ray                                                                                                                                                                            Hon. Secretary                                                                                                                                                                 Community Advocacy Alliance.