by ray jackson
below is a reply to 30 questions the isja put to the ombudsman, bruce barbour, that sought a wide-ranging explanation of deaths in custody perpetrated by the nsw police, the power of the ombudsman in relation to monitoring and investigating such deaths, the misused power of the nsw police relative to the abuse of tasers, and his other justice responsibilities in other custodial jurisdictions.
the thirty questions were hand-delivered to his office, but not to bruce personally, on 26 june 2012.
i have included the questions below for your convenience.
although in his acknowledgement letter bruce had stated quite firmly that he and his staff would consider each question carefully, this was not the approach taken and bruce and/or his staff decided to bundle the questions into 4 rather broad headings. personally i find this method to hide more than it reveals. perhaps that is why such a reply was chosen.
our role in relation to the nsw police force.
i would put questions 1-9, 14, 19, 22, 25 and 29 under this heading. 14 questions that i feel would have been better answered singularly rather than collectively.
again we are told that the ombudsman's office can sit in on interviews held by investigating police into other police and there is no mention made that this process of police investigating police is wrong at any level. later we will read that the ombudsman has given his full support to police investigating police and believes that it is the 'public interest' for the current practice to continue.
along with the above process, the ombudsman's staff 'subject officer/s and witnesses' but it is not explained clearly as to what they subject these officer/s and witnesses to. they, the ombudsman's staff can also access evidence and information from the police force computers and will maintain close contact with the police investigator throughout the investigations.
the concerns that i have with this process are well known to all on this post list. if we require that full justice be done in cases where the nsw police kill, torture, assault or otherwise brutalise their victims then we, as the public, cannot accept the continuation of police investigating police. it is just not possible that the veracity of the investigation will not be tarnished by the fact of police investigating other police.
this criminal conspiracy, of course, is not just restricted to the police. in an interesting article in the sydney morning herald, friday july 13, 2012, commentator richard ackland wrote an opinion piece titled 'nothing to hide - just ask them' in which he looks at the abysmal record of the armed forces when investigating its own internal misdeeds, in this case the many claims of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. the investigating team from legal firm dla piper found resistance and bad memory syndrome at every level of their investigation. the hostility from past and present army officers was quite palpable. firstly to the fact that outside investigators were used (and not the police??) and secondly to the exposing of the truth that would rubbish the allegedly good name of the australian armed forces.
"military justice has been proven to be not much of a justice system at all. the trial process was dominated by serving or reserve officers, many of whom were lawyers. there was a lot of secrecy and closed courts.the protection of the system was more important than the enforcement of the law". and it is for that reason and that reason alone the practice of the army investigating themselves was discontinued. the same applies to the navy but i am unsure of the status of the air force.
the same reasons, especially the final point, can also be made for other groups. would we really trust the church to investigate paedophiles in their midst. looking at the history of paedophilia in the church i would see such an investigation as not being possible.
for the police, richard looks to the criminal conspiracy that arose out of the killing of adam salter in 2009. we have commented on this case previously. richard writes that "police closed ranks and produced a whitewash of an internal investigation, even involving deliberate lies, according to counsel for the family, stephen rushton. the police have clung to internal investigations for "operational"reasons." this police term is but code for protecting their own under the umbrella of 'the culture' that is more important, much more important than finding justice.
richard then goes on to look at the legal system itself and that group also needs a lot of public air.
but back to bruce and his staff attempting to make sense of it all. his team are required to scrutinise the nsw police force complaint handling system and inspect its records. cynic i may be but would it not be more fruitful perhaps if your team interviewed the complainants rather than those complained against.
our role in relation to correctional and juvenile justice centres.
three questions, 16 - 18 in this category are basically answered. they have a complaints system for nsw inmates and from juveniles. if bruce or his team believe that admin misconduct, eg. an assault by a gaol or juvenile justice officer has occurred, then in the public interest his office can conduct a direct investigation under the ombudsman's act. nothing is provided to any coronial inquest.
our investigation into the nswpf use of tasers.
four questions in this category, 10,11,20 and 21. we are informed that a major investigation into the police use/abuse of tasers is coming to a close and will soon be tabled in parliament and then public access will be availalable. we await with much interest.
system for investigating complaints and critical incidents.
15 questions in this group. 12 - 15, 18, 19, 22 - 30.
i must admit to being gob-smacked when reading the first three paragraphs of bruce's reply to the above questions. i know bruce is not a fool but i can only describe his answers to be the most foolish i have ever read. the first three paragraphs could have been written by the flacks in the police media unit. it just defies common sense. there is now so much public information on the criminal actions of the police in involving themselves in whitewash after whitewash, each seemingly more arrogant than the ones preceding them.
how much public information is going to be required before the o'farrell government and the overseeing bodies see and accept the need to change the process that allows the police to control the whole situation. the public call is for police to not investigate other police in death in custody issues they are involved in, along with the abuse of tasers and other matters of police brutalisation. they will still be able to investigate civilian matters but still with the same overseeing roles.
of the 200+ deaths in custody at the hands of the police nationally the question arises as to why no police office has been found guilty in a court of law. the closest we came to that happening was in qld. with the killing of mulrunji doomadgee by then senior sergeant chris hurly. hurley was exonerated by an all-white jury from townsville that has been legally found to be a most racist town.
so many police cases have been thrown out of court because magistrates and judges do not accept police fabrications. and may they throw even more out. the adam salter expose by 4 corners must cause bruce and others to seriously consider at least to question the current system but instead bruce not only embraces it he is proud of doing so. with such blind bias for the police we must question bruce's involvement in overseeing such cases.
for too long all police forces have been allowed to completely rort the legal system to their own advantage and the continued protection of their fellow officers and eventually that must change as it has in other countries without it seems society suffering in any way or the police all being sacked.
bruce has called for all critical incidents for the police, the gaol system and juvenile justice to be reported to his office but with a wink and a nod to his views as stated, i can only ask why he is bothering?
if governments and the public can accept that there are major problems with the armed forces and the churches, among other groups, investigating themselves why is it that the governments and overseeing bodies cannot see what the public clearly see and that is police forces racked with corruption when they investigate themselves?
i did not expect much from bruce and his team but i am bitterly disappointed with the outcome to our 30 questions. we now need to return to attorney-general, greg smith and the police minister, mike gallacher to bring about change but we will need all the support of good people, those with a sound and moral mind to join us in seeking such change.
i believe that it would be of little use to approach premier barry o'farrell due to the fact that the mote in his eye is at least as big as bruce's. it was barry who pontificated the advice that 'tasers do not kill.' three days after 6 police tortured and killed roberto laudisio curti with pepper spray and tasers x 3.
police are investigating that death also. overseen by bruce of course.
fkj
We offer to the Ombudsman the following 30 questions and hope that by his answers he will make known to the public the breadth and responsibilities of his role as a protector of the Public Interest.
Questions for Mr. Bruce Barbour, NSW Ombudsman:
Q1 How are you monitoring or overseeing the death in custody investigation reports from police into other police?
Q2 Do you personally attend to these reports or are they given to another
investigation officer in your office?
Q3 Are you able to re-open or re-investigate a police investigation if you
or one of your officers has problems or suspicions that the report is not
factual?
Q4 Would you or your office do the re-investigation or would you refer it
back to the same investigating team, or perhaps appoint another fresh
investigative team but still with the police in control?
Q5 In your 12 years as ombudsman have you ever called for a
re-investigation of a police-related death in custody event? If yes, what
was the outcome?
Q6 Apart from supplying your witnesses to police interviews is there any
other action taken by your office during the police-on-police investigation?
Q7 Do you or your officers have any concerns that police investigate
police on all matters?
Q8 Would you or your officers favour a Civilian Investigation Team such as
operates already in England, Ontario - Canada, Northern Ireland and New
Zealand?
Q9 Would it be your preference that such a Civilian Investigation Team work from your
office?
Q10 Your report 2010 - 2011 shows that you are quite well aware of the
lethality of the use of Tasers by police, is this not a grave concern that
must lead to the removal of Tasers from the police armoury?
Q11 ISJA clearly recognizes that one death by tasering is one death too
many, would you argue to the NSW Government that Tasers must be removed from the police, not only for death in custody events but also by their proven misuse by many police officers?
Q12 Police-related deaths in custody are increasing dramatically, there
being 5 such NSW deaths reported in the first 5 months of this year, this
being the case, why is there only the case of Roberto Laudisio Curti
mentioned on your web page?
Q13 Is it only the more publically controversial cases that are monitored
by you or your office?
Q14 Do the so-called independent police investigation teams get a free run
for those events thought to be less controversial?
Q15 Do you consider that you and your officers have a recognizable Duty of Care to find the truth of all police-related deaths in custody on behalf of
those families involved?
Q16 Do you and your officers have the same monitoring and overseeing role for deaths in the NSW gaol system?
Q17 Do you and your officers have the same monitoring and overseeing role for deaths in custody in the NSW gaol system caused by a lack of Duty of Care by Justice Health officers?
Q18 Do the Reports from your office on deaths in custody events by any
custodial area go to the relevant Coroner for his/her information and
knowledge?
Q19 Are you monitoring and overseeing the hazardous shooting through the wind-screen of a car at kings cross recently by police?
Q20 Are all uses of Tasers and/or Glocks reported to and monitored by your office? Anecdotally we are told such use of these lethal weapons is
increasing virtually month by month, is this correct?
Q21 Can your office intervene into the use of these weapons? if not, why
not?
Q22 You were ombudsman in 2004, did you monitor the police-on-police
investigation into the Redfern police pursuit and subsequent death of 17
year old TJ Hickey? If not, why not?
Q23 Do you or your officers have any monitoring or overseeing role into the actions and decisions of the NSW Coroner’s office?
Q24 Whilst your office has the legislated duty to monitor police and gaol
complaints, among other areas, we know that the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission against Corruption also have Legislated rights to investigate police, what are the different responsibilities of each entity towards police corruption involved in police investigating police issues?
Q25 Is there any real concrete and positive action you and your officers
can take to reduce police brutality in all its forms from occurring?
Q26 Can you deliver justice for these victims and their families: TJ HICKEY, VERONICA BAXTER, TERRY GRIFFITHS, ROBERTO LAUDISIO CURTI, THE BOYS SHOT AT KINGS CROSS AND OTHERS?
Q27 What bottom-line responsibilities does the NSW Ombudsman have to help ensure our Responsible Government's Ministerial natural signatory obligations to our United Nations Resolutions & Conventions, along with our Australian National Mental Health Strategy's National Service Standards, including NSW Police & Health Services Mental Health MOU?
Q28 What resources have been required and have they been satisfied, if not, why not?
Q29 Clearly all Crown Sworn NSW Police Commanders, Unit Managers, Sergeants, Senior Constables have been trained, qualified, experienced, deemed competent in these essential service areas of both NSW Police & Health Services Mental Health MOU yet where are those Service Effectiveness Evaluation Reports and results?
Q30 There are clear process & outcome indicators since the 2000 publication of our Australian National Mental Health Strategy's Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention PPEI Action Plan yet there seems little awareness, let alone active attention to these details since, why?
We respectfully invite the Ombudsman to attend the Rally to answer any or all of the questions we have placed before him.
FOR KOORI JUSTICE
ray jackson
president
indigenous social justice association
isja01@internode.on.net
(m) 0450 651 063
(p) 02 9318 0947
address 1303/200 pitt street waterloo 2017
we live and work on the stolen lands of the gadigal people.
sovereignty treaty social justice