Australia: Systemic unlawfulness: an interview with Dr Vicki Sentas on police powers

Last Updated: 11 November 2019
Article by Paul Gregoire

Most Read Contributor in Australia, November 2019

Unsurprisingly, the recently released Rethinking Strip Searches by NSW Police report drew the ire of the force. Commissioned by the Redfern Legal Centre, the UNSW report caused reigning state police commissioner Mick Fuller to criticise it very publicly.

At a 29 August budget estimates hearing, Fuller suggested that the researchers needed to do more work on their statistics, while in mid-September, the top cop tried unsuccessfully to prevent the strip search document being added to the record of the state inquest into deaths at music festivals.

The strip search report sets out that between 2006 and the present, the strip searches by NSW police have increased twentyfold. And it calls for an overhaul of strip search laws, so as to clarify – in a more precise way – how officers of the law should be carrying out this invasive practice.

Police strip search protocols are set out in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), commonly known as the LEPRA. Section 32 of the Act states that a strip search can only be conducted in the field when "the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances" make it necessary.

Policing potentials

Another controversial report on police powers was the 2017 Policing Young People report. The document raised public awareness around a secretive program that NSW police has been running since 2000, called the Suspect Targeting Management Plan (STMP).

The STMP is a secret blacklist that contains the names of individuals, who are targeted by police for increased surveillance. This includes being stopped and searched, or having officers check on individuals at home. Of concern is the fact that an STMP target doesn't even need to have a criminal record.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this program, researchers found, was it disproportionately targets young Aboriginal people. The data from five local area commands revealed that over a two year period, 54 percent of STMP targets were First Nations people.

This disproportionate targeting of Aboriginal youth is made even starker, when one takes into account that Indigenous people only make up 3.4 percent of the overall population in this state. Researchers also found that the socially damaging STMP has no real impact on crime.

Academic oversight

Dr Vicki Sentas co-authored both reports. The doctor is a UNSW Faculty of Law senior lecturer in criminal law, criminology and policing. And she has a focus on police powers and racialisation in law and police activity.

At the August launch of the strip search report, Dr Sentas made clear that "strip searches are not a normal part of policing". And she added that these intimidating procedures should only be reserved "for genuine emergencies, where there is an imminent risk to someone's safety".

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Dr Sentas about the implications of the strip search report findings, her take on the shift towards policing that deals with future crime, and why law reform is a necessary component of bringing about a change in police practice and culture.

Firstly, you co-authored the Rethinking Strip Searches by NSW Police report. Dr Sentas, in undertaking your research, what would you say struck you the most about the use of strip searches by police in this state?

Lawyers have been saying for years that police have been strip searching people without a lawful basis. And people have been coming forward with some shocking experiences for some time.

This is what prompted Redfern Legal Centre to commission our research, with my co-author Dr Michael Grewcock, to support their Safe and Sound campaign for fairer strip searches.

So, while we were not surprised by the predictable patterns in the case studies provided by lawyers, it really struck us that the police's own data supported what the lawyers have been saying for years: that strip searches are happening when there's nothing serious or urgent to justify what's a highly intrusive search.

The data we got from the police on the recorded reason for strip searches supports this. We found that 91 percent of all recorded strip searches are for the reason of the suspicion of drug possession.

So, while 30 percent of all strip searches end in charges, most of these charges are for drug possession.

For the more serious offences, in 2018-19, only 27 weapon charges resulted from a strip search and for drug supply only 280 charges.

If the majority of strip searches are being done for drug possession – and the majority don't actually find anything – it's improbable that the circumstances were so serious and so urgent to justify the search.

In our view, the police data alone discloses the likelihood of systemic unlawfulness.

The report garnered a number of controversial responses from NSW police commissioner Mick Fuller. What would you say the responses by him tell us about the report findings?

Commissioner Fuller tried to discredit our research in a number of ways. We said that between 2006 and today, there was a twentyfold increase in strip searches.

The commissioner said that the starting figure of less than 300 strip searches in 2006 that we cited from the Ombudsman report was wrong. We correctly cited it from the report.

In budget estimates, the commissioner said the actual number was between 800 to 1,000. But, he didn't provide an exact figure, or explain why the figures are different from the original ones the Ombudsman had sourced from NSW police and tabled at the time in parliament.

Even if the 2006 figures are higher, it would still make a fivefold increase. And it's not clear why a fivefold increase is any more acceptable than a twentyfold one. The reality is that NSW police are increasingly relying on this exceptional power, as part of a failed war against drugs.

But, the commissioner hasn't contested the figures provided to us by NSW police under the Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA) that showed police are predominately using strip searches for the reason of suspicion of drug possession.

The commissioner is contesting our analysis of the law, but with all due respect, this actually denies what the law requires.

I understand our findings are challenging for NSW police. The evidence is police are engaging in unlawful strip searches on a systemic basis. We stand by these findings and our analysis of the law doesn't change.

If the reasons that police give for the overwhelming majority of strip searches is possession of drugs, this can't provide a legal basis.

The public want open discussion and reflection about the police force's approach to strip searches and people want to see change.

The use of strip searches often follows an indication from a drug detection dog. When a police officer searches a person, they must hold a reasonable suspicion for doing so, and police manuals specifically state that the indication of a dog is not enough to warrant this.

However, on the ground, it seems that police are searching people based solely on a dog indication. In your understanding, how can officers in the field simply do this?

Standard reported scenario is that a person will be sniffed by a dog and if a positive indication is given, the person is generally searched. Sometimes this will escalate to a strip search if nothing is found, on the basis that something must be concealed because the dog indicated it.

But, we know there's a high rate of false positives. And the dogs are so sensitive as to pick up the scent of drugs even in the airspace around a person, or if a person has been in the company of others using drugs, where a person has used drugs previously, or most importantly, for none of the above reasons.

While police can't legally rely on a dog indication on its own, it's often the person's alleged demeanour or behaviour that police use in conjunction with the dog indication.

So, we are seeing a lot of COPS event records where police add, for example, dog indication plus "acting nervous" or "avoiding detection" to justify their reasonable suspicion.

The core problem is how police understand and apply the legal concept of reasonable suspicion. Police don't understand what reasonable suspicion is.

Just because someone looks nervous, or because of the time of night, or because the person might have turned around to avoid the dog, or because they might have averted eye contact with police, or they looked shifty, or even the opposite, because people stared at police: these are not reasonable suspicion.

Part of it may be police training on the law. But, the other part is high visibility, saturation policing, when in reality the better police practice in any given circumstances might be to not intervene.

We've got to look to the institutional factors that guide police towards unnecessarily searching someone, when it wouldn't be justified at law, as it wouldn't be a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence.

Both of these examples – strip searches and drug dogs – show a disconnect between how officers are operating in the field, and what's stipulated in the law and protocols. Would you say there are other instances where this division is happening?

The clash between policing and law is arguably evident in every police power. It's most evident in everyday, general searches.

The commissioner was absolutely right that strip searches are a small proportion of general searches, because there are hundreds and thousands of general searches each year and police need to have a proper reasonable suspicion for those searches to be lawful.

In the work that I do with Redfern Legal Centre around their statewide police complaints practice, I've seen police records indicating that police have not correctly applied their powers by their own account.

This happens not just with the power to search, but also, with the power to request identification, giving move on directions and conducting arrests. Everyday police street powers need much greater scrutiny.

A 2017 report that you co-authored on the STMP found that Aboriginal people were being disproportionately targeted for enhanced surveilling. What does this tell us about the policing of First Nations people in this state?

First Nations people have been subjected to far too much arbitrary, violent and damaging forms of policing since colonisation. It's ongoing and it needs to stop.

The gross, disproportionate and discriminatory targeting of Aboriginal people under the STMP is a continuation of the past, and it amplifies over policing in new ways.

The STMP relies on generating scores of a person's risk of future offending, based on past offending, and also contact with police, and other alleged risk factors, like child protection notifications and other family members that have offended.

For Aboriginal families, the STMP risk factors lock people into a damaging cycle of policing. We know that Aboriginal people have disproportionate contact with the police generally, so that puts them at greater risk of being put on the STMP.

The STMP is a disruption program. There is no therapeutic element to it. It is just about increased policing, surveilling people, stopping people on the streets, or knocking on people's doors when they're at home.

The theory is disrupting people's everyday lives will stop them from offending in the future. This isn't the solution to the complex issues around why Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. And harassing people just makes things worse.

A lot of best practice evidence indicates that programs like the STMP can't address the causes of offending. And First Nations people know what the causes of crime are in their communities. And they know the solutions.

So, it's time police listen to First Nations people and take their lead on self-determination strategies that actually support communities.

There are positive examples of police doing this in places like Bourke, where it is led by the community through Just Reinvest NSW. And more needs to be done by NSW police in listening to First Nations people.

Scrapping the STMP would be a positive first step.

The STMP is a preventative measure, meaning these individuals are under surveillance not for any crimes they're attempting to commit, but rather for their assessed potential to commit such crimes.

This brings us into the realm of future crime, and pre-emptive policing methods. This sort of policing is on the increase. What are your thoughts on the rise of this style of policing?

It's usually referred to by police as proactive policing. Proactive policing came into dominance in the last few decades across most western states, largely for economic reasons.

Proactive policing was contrasted to traditional policing, so-called reactive policing. And proactive policing was seen to be a more efficient and effective technique of crime control.

Reactive policing is where an actual crime has happened, and police use normal investigative techniques to solve that crime, apprehend the perpetrators and start criminal proceedings.

But, for so-called volume crimes, like theft, reactive policing was seen to be too labour intensive and costly. And there was this idea that proactive policing would involve less labour time by relying on technology, like crime mapping.

Police forces all over the world sought to prevent crime by predicting the places where robberies, for example, would happen.

Then the technology shifted from place-based targeted programming to person-based targeting, where it identified particular people who had offended before and were predicted by the technology to be repeat offenders. But, this is in advance and separate to any actual crime happening.

The idea of proactive policing is if you put resources into surveillance and disrupt crime before it happens then this is a more efficient use of public funding. But, there's no hard evidence that this is the case. And it has concerning implications for people's lives.

The major problem of shifting police resources to presumptive categories of offenders is that it clashes with the rule of law, and all the norms of the criminal justice system, around things like the presumption of innocence.

But, most of the time, no offence has been committed, so there's no criminal proceedings. There are just more and more police powers targeting people. It brings into question what the purpose of police powers is in a liberal democracy.

And lastly, Dr Sentas, the strip search report was part of a wider campaign calling for an overhaul of the laws applying to this procedure, as well as a change to how routine the strip searching of citizens has become.

Based on your research, do you think this campaign is likely to change the way the force is operating at the moment? Are there examples from the past that reveal campaigns such as this can be effective?

Reforming strip search laws is really important to better guide the police and protect the public from arbitrary searches. Better police training and manuals are important, but on their own, they're not enough.

The issue is too important to leave just to police. Parliament needs to step in. But, on the other hand, strip search law reform on its own is not enough. We need much bigger changes, especially to drug policing.

The decriminalisation of drug possession is needed to shift away from a police approach and a criminalisation approach to what is a public health issue and more of a harm minimisation approach.

The tightening of the regulatory legal framework around strip searches is fundamental. It's about making police follow the law, rather than making police follow their own law.

Law reform can help shift police culture. And there has been a lot of research on this. That's as long as there's a willing police management. Some might say that law reform is not enough, but it is an important part of the puzzle.

The problem is that strip searches haven't been oversighted in the courts so much. Law reform would hopefully make judicial oversight of this power more possible if the criteria of strip searches are narrower.

More broadly, rolling back the excess and the overreach of criminal law and police power is an important strategy. This approach does have a history in Australia, well before the law and order culture of NSW took hold.

This culture of rolling back criminal law and excessive police power needs to be revived. For example, in the 1970s, we saw law reform in NSW, and also in other states, that ended up abolishing public drunkenness as an offence.

There was a strong recognition at the time that police were just criminalising poverty – and also, being Indigenous – through public drunkenness laws.

So, law reform can be a strategy or a tool for shrinking the footprint of the police, where it's harmful or counterproductive.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions