Friday 17 May 2019

Comment on a recent police raid


The following is an edited extract of an email I wrote to the Minister for Police regarding a recent police raid on a premises which, coincidentally, is a well-known gay venue, were several things went wrong, including a serious injury to a man who fled out of fear that a violent homophobic home invasion was underway.
For media reports and other key aspects of this matter, see:
*****
I wasn’t planning on commenting on the matter of the recent police raid, the direct issues of which are mostly being well discussed in the media, but I have changed my mind following the recent comment by a member of the police union.
As a reminder of my personal background:
  • I have an uncle who was a serving police officer in another state, but left over corruption concerns;
  • I have known several police officers socially; and
  • my experiences with police have ranged from good to poor.
With regard to the police raid:
  • I was pleased that you demanded an investigation (that is indicative of governing for the entire community, not only the majority);
  • I was also very pleased that the police made an apology willingly and early; and
  • I am extremely pleased that the investigation has been referred to IBAC.
I recall hearing a comment on radio that the “Wrongs Act” includes a specific provision for making an apology without admitting guilt. I haven’t checked that (owing to limited time) but the source was legally qualified, so I will assume the comment is true. That provision is, in my opinion, excellent, and I hope it is more widely publicised.
The apology that was made, however, was early and unprompted, and that potentially helps reduce the trauma caused to victims.
My impression is that the general public thinks making an apology is an admission of liability - and they also do not know how that magnifies trauma, whether it is sexual harassment or assault, some other form of abuse, or a misuse of power. It would be good were such fallacies corrected.
The fact that the apology was made shows the changes for the better that have occurred in our police force over the last decade or so. This is an aspect that I keep thinking of when reading of the revelations of a current enquiry: that behaviour occurred in, and largely belongs to, an earlier generation of police. Today’s police have been better trained (and the increased accountability resulting from social media may be an influence - it certainly made a change to the behaviour of coalition military in Iraq).
I consider that these changes started with a past Chief Commissioner, but I also consider that the police reaction to those prevention-focused initiatives showed that some police are resistant to such changes, and are inclined towards the problematic behaviour shown by a number of recent matters (which have either been resolved, or subject to current enquiry).
One of the two aspects (*) that is significant, in my opinion, about such misconduct, is how many are adequately managed by internal police investigation - some do merit independent investigation for a range of reasons, but today’s police force is much better than it used to be at such investigations, and the early and mostly willing referral by police of the recent raid of concern to IBAC is actually, in my opinion, a sign of that.
Nevertheless, there remains room for improvement. On that, the main problem I see with police investigation of themselves is that there is no voice for everyday people. I would like to see such enquiries automatically include someone from outside the police to provide a view on behalf of the community the police is seeking to serve. Perhaps unusually, I would like that person, rather than being a human rights expert or lawyer, to be a qualified psychologist or counsellor, who can help police explore the likely impact of the incident on general members of public - that is, the trauma extends beyond those directly involved - and, if they are innocent, they are indeed victims NOTWITHSTANDING that the action was committed by serving police.
The uniform does not prevent trauma - on either side, just as it does not outrank the law. (* this is the second aspect I alluded to earlier)
The sort of attitudinal problem I am describing is something I first came across in the 80s in another state, where a police officer I knew was talking blithely of his preference to pointing a loaded gun at cars stopped during road blocks for his safety, and refused to acknowledge that such could cause any problems to the victims of that behaviour - he seemed to think that his wearing the uniform prevented damage, which is utter rubbish.
Other examples of such problem attitudes include (noting my comments about apologies minimising trauma, and that the other side of that is that not apologising or acknowledging increases trauma) police refusing to admit that being strip searched is traumatic, rather than “embarrassing” - particularly where cross gender strip searches occur (which is a practice that simply should NEVER happen) or where those people being strip searched are victims of sexual or child abuse - I recently read an eloquent description of such effects in NSW which include a statement of the obvious: that the people strip searched would probably never call on the police for help.
That also parallels my own experience, as I am reluctant to call the police because of the poor experiences in the past. Making a complaint about those would not help me to feel comfortable about calling the police: what would help is knowing that the police with problematic attitudes have gone. (I dare say that, despite the necessary and beneficial apology, many of the victims of gay club raid in the 90s would still be reluctant to call the police, and, despite the good efforts currently being shown by most police with regard to the raid of concern, it - and some concerning public remarks - will quite possibly cause reluctance to call police if needed in the future.)
Those police are largely those who developed through a previous era, when attitudes were different, but there is another aspect here, and that is the damage done by being a serving police member to the serving police member.
This is something is well understood in the context of military service - for instance, I understand that the US military determined - as a generalisation - in World War Two that nine months was the most any person could experience of frontline combat without becoming too affected to function, which is a criteria going beyond the now fairly widely understood PTSD. However, I am unaware of anyone having done a similar study of police, and I think it is desperately needed - some of the frustrations and desperation being revealed in current enquiries show the damage caused by trying to protect the community, and being unable to always do so.
It is also quite likely that most of the minority of police forces across the world who advocate for increased militarisation have been similarly affected. (Within that sub-group, there are quite possibly a minority who have psychological flaws, but I would hope those are now being prevented from joining the police - and any currently serving will eventually be replaced by the better generation coming through.)
I was pleased to hear last year of the measures being undertaken to provide increased support of police, but, in an ideal world, I would also like to see:
  • rotation of duty along the lines of rotating soldiers from frontline duty (and if that results in the community paying increased costs, so be it: I consider it high time we stopped undervaluing what we expect of others generally, not only in the context of emergency services);
  • similar to the above, increased leave provisions as a matter of course;
  • on the basis that the extraordinary powers police have (and I direct you to my comments regarding the trauma of strip searches as an example of this), routine monitoring of all police members’ attitudes, to find any indication of the hardening of attitudes that indicates the occurrence of psychological damage (such considerations would also need to differentiate between the banter etc that builds unity [a widely under-acknowledged matter, including in seeking improvements to business cultures] and genuine changes of attitudes); and
  • effective aid for problems (e.g., have the monitoring performed by an independent psychologist or organisation which is barred from reporting or identifying any individual cases, and that they also be authorised to provide aid, and that such be budgeted for separate to police funding).
All serving police need to understand that the impacts of their actions will go beyond those directly involved - particularly these days. I think most do understand that, and the proportion who do and accept that is increasing, but there is, as in all groups, a small, resistant minority. The concerns around possible militarisation being shown in response to the Hares and Hyenas raid, as well as the concerns of the LGBT community show that impact, just as the Police Union’s secretary suggest the existence of that resistant minority.
For the sake of the community, the police force, and those damaged real people in that minority, we, as a community (it is not only a police force responsibility), need to deal with the issues currently being raised much more effectively.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)