Necessary change

Dear Andy

It was quite recently that an eminent English Appeals Court judge, Lord Robin Auld, said words to the effect: “Modern laws and procedures should assist and not hinder the search for Justice.”

The pending amendments to the Forensic Procedures Act, particularly relating to DNA technology, will expand the data base of this powerful and effective investigative tool. Given time, the advantages of DNA testing either to help convict or acquit persons who have been charged with committing crimes, together with its cost effectiveness, will become even more apparent.

Some special praise is forthcoming to various persons and organizations who have been involved in bringing about the change. Certainly, to the politicians who changed their minds to expand the use of the technology, The Advertiser newspaper and in particular radio station 5AA, which conveyed the debate to the public. A special mention to the Commissioner of Police for his leadership and telling the public his personal views without becoming involved in politics.

I have saved the Police Association and its president, Mr Peter Alexander, ’til last as they are deserving of special praise, with their only thought being what was best and right for South Australians.

To those who resisted change, and often in a most insulting manner to police and scientists, I say: “Wake up. We are in the 21st century. Living in today’s modern society does come at some cost.”

However, there are some necessary and obvious changes which should be made to other laws and procedures – three in fact. I have not spoken with a serving or retired police officer who has not agreed with me. To make the changes would not require much research, just follow the saying: “Look globally and act locally.” They have already acted in the United Kingdom and one can not understand how two systems with a common origin have drifted so far apart.

First, the Judges Rules. I can remember as far back as 1980, when the Chief Constable of the London Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, was one of a group complaining of suspects using their right of silence when questioned by police, but in court having a plausible defence.

The suggested reform was that if a suspect was going to rely on certain facts at a later stage, he or she should give those facts when questioned. This would allow the judge to comment at the trial – a smelly story smells all the worse with age.

The Judges Rules were eventually changed in the UK, with the caution being varied by including words such as: “It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court.”

Even in the United States of America, the Miranda caution only remained after a split decision in the US High Court when the judge considered most likely to vote against its retention remained with the status quo.

The issues which have brought about the changes in overseas countries exist in South Australia and it is arguable that the conditions which brought about the existence of the Judges Rules some hundreds of years ago, no longer exist in our society. Is there anything quite so ridiculous as telling a person with a criminal history he or she doesn’t have to answer questions?

Second, give the police the power in certain circumstances to detain a person on suspicion and allow a period to either establish a reasonable suspicion or release the suspect. It is a common practice in the United Kingdom, but let me provide some examples.

During the Truro murders investigation, James Miller was invited by Detective Sgt Lawrie and Detective Foster to accompany them to police headquarters to assist them with their enquiries. He agreed but later refuted this in court.

The question is: if he had refused, what advice would I have given to the detectives? The decision may well have altered the result, but while Parliament saw fit to change the laws on procedures after arrest, they should also have considered the procedures both before and after arrest.

If the two superintendents had the legal authority to detain former detective, Colin Creed, while the exhibits they had taken from his home were forensically examined we would have saved the embarrassing manhunt and crime spree that followed.

Another example arises when a suspect provides an alibi. Surely it is reasonable to detain the suspect while the alibi is being checked rather than to risk absconding or interfering with witnesses or warning accomplices.

Police patrols are tasked to very complex situations and expected to make almost instant decisions. They often need time to take statements from witnesses to give them reasonable cause to detain a suspect.

My third issue involves paedophilia. Our children need protection. President Peter Alexander has already addressed this subject in the Police Journal (President’s message, September 2002) and I don’t want to repeat what he has already said other than to urge support for him.

These suggested changes seem so obvious that their introduction should be a simple matter, particularly with the UK examples to follow. However, that is not likely as I would not expect total support from the legal profession, or from civil-liberty groups. It would fall back on the police themselves to convince the public and Parliament that change is necessary.

I don’t advocate police disobedience, nor would I recommend an orchestrated result, but only because I would not expect others to do what I can not do myself. Therefore, I would call on all serving police officers and former police, who accept the need for change, to lobby their politicians, explain the current situation to their friends and club members and see if we can bring about change.
Yours sincerely
K L Thorsen
Commander (retired)
SA Police

Quality kitchen

Dear Andy

We recently had an entire new kitchen installed in our home by Artistic Kitchens & Designs of 26 Wodonga St, Beverley. This particular firm advertises in the Police Journal.

Per medium of the Police Journal, we desire to place on record our appreciation for the professional manner in which our kitchen was manufactured and installed. The degree of expertise evident in the manufacture and installation of our kitchen was of a high standard.

We are extremely happy with the end product and have nothing but praise for all employees of Artistic Kitchens & Designs.

In conclusion, we have no hesitation in highly recommending Artistic Kitchens & Designs.
Peter & Kath Campbell
Oaklands Park