April 1999 Volume 80 Number 4 "serving the protectors"
The Readout

Failures of Complaints System

The editor

The police complaints system has two outstanding failures which have been obvious for years. One, that a complaint is laid being sufficient justification for an investigation, either by interview or a response by police report from the officer named, irrespective of the complaint being obviously flawed, incorrect, malicious or arising from an illegal act by the complainant. The other, in response to Deputy Commissioner McKenzie’s statement (February Police Journal) “that the investigation process clears 95 per cent of police officers of any wrong doing”, being blatantly incorrect.

I have been fortunate not to attract too many complaints but one which leaps to mind is a businessman who wished to lay a charge of illegal use of his vehicle. I rejected his attempts twice, the second as a supervisor cancelling a PIR (police incident report). He was having trouble collecting payment for a vehicle he was selling, after giving several extensions of time for payment, from a person who still lived at a known address where he had the vehicle and was still employed in a regular occupation. The businessman admitted the car he was selling was only leased by him. He had no authority to sell the vehicle. He complained because I would not accept the report on his terms.

As with this and a couple of other minor complaints to which I had to respond, the reply from the Police Complaints Authority was: “That the complaint should not be further investigated under the Act.” The cover letter from the Internal Investigation Branch of the Police Department states: “The effect of this determination is that the complaint will not be investigated. Accordingly, no record of this matter will be made on your personal file.”

I was never “cleared of any wrongdoing” in any of these matters. Have any officers, with more serious allegations made against them, actually been exonerated, or were they just informed the matter would not be investigated further.

Tony Madigan
Senior Constable
Malvern Police Station

Grateful for Support

Dear Andrew

I write on behalf of myself and family of Stephen Reid. Sincere thanks go to all SAPOL members who attended his funeral, for the many cards and the flowers which were sent to me personally.

Special thanks to Trevor Haskell of Welfare, Police Rangers for the guard of honour, Chief Inspector Bob Yates for his continued support and tributes given by himself and Sgt Peter Schumacher.

I wish Steve’s friends and colleagues all the very best for their futures.

Yours sincerely
Cynthia Reid and family.

Women Police Thesis Complete

The Editor

My name is Rosalie Somerset and, in February 1997, I wrote to the Police Journal asking for women officers to be interviewed for my Honours Thesis. I have completed my thesis, titled Guns, Handcuffs and Women, and I received a distinction (2A) for the work.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the women who responded to my letter, and agreed to be interviewed. I would also like to thank the staff at the Police Library who took the time to search out a list of references for women in policing in Australia and overseas, and I would like to thank the PASA for printing my letter in 1997.

I have given a copy of my thesis to the library, if anyone is interested in it. If any officer has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on 8277 5731 or e-mail at pettman@senet.com.au

Once again, I would like to express my thanks to everyone who helped with my thesis, especially the women who agreed to be interviewed.

Thank you
Rosalie Somerset

Seeking Coppers’ Tales

Dear Sir

I am in the preparatory stages of writing and editing a book of humorous stories and anecdotes about policing.

As well as recording my own experiences, I am collecting those of other serving or past police officers.

If any of your members have stories or experiences which they think might be suitable for inclusion in the book, I would like them to contact me.

Stories of any length will be accepted but may ultimately be subject to editing. Identities of contributors will be concealed if requested. The identity of any characters referred to in contributions must remain anonymous.

Please send contributions to:

Craig Stevens
GPO Box 2343
Adelaide, SA 5001.

Contributors will be contacted if their submissions are chosen for inclusion and in regard to any associated contractual/legal issues.

Members should feel free to contact me should they require any clarification or wish to discuss this matter.

Yours sincerely
Craig Stevens.

High Speeds, Driver Training

The Editor

In recent times there have been a couple of serious accidents involving police officers engaged in “urgent-duty driving”. Without wishing to highlight or comment on any particular case, I would like to raise an issue which I believe is relevant and worth a mention, this being driver training.

Police officers, on occasions, are required as part of their normal duties to become involved in urgent-duty driving. This may be in response to an urgent priority A tasking, or the result of a pursuit involving a very serious offence. In each case police are afforded protection under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act, when warning devices are activated. It is worth noting that whilst being afforded this protection, police are not exempt from the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act - due care and dangerous driving.

Implicit in the provision of Section 40 is the assumption that police will find it necessary to exceed the speed limit. Given that the nature of professional “urgent-duty” driving invariably involves driving outside the parameters of the Road Traffic Act, but within those of Sections 45 and 46, at what point do we distinguish between the two and what are the determinants of the latter?

A simplistic approach would suggest that where a police vehicle crashes, and at the time it crashed was being driven in excess of the speed limit, that the member was driving without due care or at a speed which was dangerous, but I see this as a more complex issue.

Urgent duty driving involves a degree of judgement by the driver as to his/her driving skills and abilities, the vehicle’s capabilities, and the surrounding environmental/traffic conditions. On what basis does the driver make decisions relating to these factors? Does the police officer have the recent and relevant driver training knowledge to assess his/her skills and abilities objectively, and has he/she been provided with adequate training to know the limitations of the vehicle?

I am not suggesting that police drive at either their own personal, or the vehicle’s limitations. I am attempting to point out the grey area that exists between professional police driving and the two offences mentioned above.

I suspect members recently completing a 1B (urgent-duty driving) course would have little difficulty in assessing their skills/abilities and the vehicle’s capabilities, but for someone who has not been instructed for many years, the grey area may be significantly larger.

To highlight a point - I completed a 1B driver-training course some 12 years ago. I was instructed in a 5-litre V8, VH Commodore. Since this time there has been no less than seven model changes, each with different features and driving characteristics. The current vehicles have a different power to weight ratio and weight distribution from those of the old V8s. Some of the more significant and perhaps consequential improvements include ABS (anti-lock breaking system), IRS (independent rear suspension), LSD (limited slip differential) and sway bars.

I was instructed in barrier evasion techniques in the event of wheel lock-up, whereas I suspect with the advent of ABS, that this is no longer relevant, although I am unsure.

It is of concern that members receive no additional training on any of these characteristics or additional features. The situation is compounded in my case by a number of years spent at Prosecution Services, a non-operational area. Consider the longer serving members who were trained in the Fords and Valiants of the 60s and 70s.

Fortunately, either by good luck or just good driving, I have never been involved in a police vehicular accident (touch wood), but feel for those who have or will.

It is easy to say that if police have concerns or are unsure, they should back off and not chance driving beyond their limitations, but this is not an adequate alternative to providing training. Knowing the individual’s and vehicle’s limitations is a basic starting point.

Considerable time and effort is given to the formulation of general orders which regulate the frequency of urgent-duty driving by narrowing the circumstances where it is justified, whereas no resources are afforded to those who find themselves falling within the criteria for such driving on a regular basis.

Perhaps an LSA driver-training officer should be considered. Regular training in line with Occupational Health and Safety requirements, with particular instruction given on new models and their features, could be a basic starting point.

Budgetary constraints are likely to be the argument against such a proposal, but one wonders about the potential for a court awarding a substantial compensation payment to any person seriously injured as a result of urgent-duty driving, where it was established that lack of training was an attributing factor.

I am a strong supporter of terminating “high-speed” pursuits that endanger police or the community. I would not like to see an error of judgement by a member (based on lack of training) be the catalyst for a preventable death, which may later be the subject of comment by the coroner, or a judge in a civil suit.

The question is, who would be the subject of this adverse comment - the police officer, or the Department for failing to provide regular training?

Firearms training has a shelf life of six months. What is the shelf life of driver training?

Kev Lawton
Elizabeth

N E W INNOVATION IN PERGOLA LIGHTING Fitted to new or existing pergolas, verandahs, gazebos or fences INSTALLATION SERVICE AVAILABLE PERANDA LIGHTING 8 Kiwi Court, Lonsdale Ph: 8326 1283   Fax: 8326 6140 Peranda Lighting is proud to be of service & offer great deals to all PASA members & families