Recently, the CAA was invited to see the new scanning device for edged weapons being considered for introduction into the Police arsenal.

The ‘Weapon Wand’ is compact, seems easy to use, and comes with a holster for the Police Utility belt. More on that later.

The device is impressive and does not require the operator to bring it into contact with the person being scanned.

When it detects metal, it subtly warns the operator to avoid embarrassing the person scanned with non-target metal objects.

With the high number of edged weapons in the community, particularly circulating amongst youths, this piece of kit is essential.

When they are introduced, the announcement must not quote numbers of units, and nominating specific locations will also be counterproductive to the deterrent effect the existence of the wands may achieve.

The idiocy of advertising geographical locations where the Police had more powers for specific times was the sort of foolish strategy that either showed the designers’ ignorance and incompetence or was deliberately set up to fail.

Perpetrators are generally spontaneous in many of their criminal endeavours, so rigid controls over a police response defy logic. Waiting for a newspaper advertisement to announce a police operation, rather than giving police the flexibility to respond as required, is plain stupid.

The second aspect of these new devices relates to their actual use by the Police.

Over a number of years, based on perceived and some real threats, Police in this State have been continually equipped with paraphernalia allegedly designed to equip them better to do their job or protect themselves and the community.

The reality of Policing is that you cannot eliminate risk; you can only reduce it.

The problem with the overload of equipment that the police must carry has reached the stage where even the fittest police member would start to tire and be less effective from simply carrying all their gear.

The Police utility belt is festooned with equipment, some of it essential, and some that will be highly likely never be used, but has to be carried just in case.

Adding the ‘Weapon Wand’ exacerbates the problem.

Perhaps the Weapon Wand can be assigned to vehicles, not the member, unless they are on specific duty. In that case, pepper spray and O/C spray could be shelved for some members in a foot patrol detail, and the “Weapon Wand” could be assigned to a member.

However, these are operational issues and, following the new Chief Commissioner’s philosophy, the decisions regarding the deployment of these devices must be left to the front-line Supervisor. This is essential so that, as circumstances frequently change in an operation, the supervisor on the ground is best placed to make decisions.

We are advocating that these wands are not necessary for all police, but they are required in sufficient numbers to handle any operation or patrol managed by Section Sergeants.

The Force does not have to go into internal conniptions, writing new and detailed instructions on the parameters of their application and how they are to be deployed, tying up Police executives to prepare, when the best decisions are made at the sharp end.

However, legislation to employ wands without restriction at the discretion of the police is essential.

The Force will have to get used to this approach as the new CCP trims the executive function of the Force, forcing more decisions down where they should be.