Right: Helicopters are suggested as a way to track fugitive vehicles with less risk to police, alleged offenders and the public at large.
.
. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against greater restrictions on high-speed police chases
1. High-speed chases are conducted in accord with safety guidelines
It has been noted that all Australian states have strict guidelines that determine the circumstances under which police pursuits can be conducted.
Among the factors Australian Capital Territory police have to consider are 'the nature and comparative seriousness of the offence' and the 'real or potential danger' to police, the public and people in the suspect car. The priority is the protection of life. The ACT guidelines state, 'The sworn duty of a police officer to protect life and property will always take primacy over the need to apprehend offenders, especially when the offence involved is relatively minor, or where there are safer options other than immediate apprehension.'
Victoria Police have developed a similar 'trigger point' system that includes a priority system depending on the severity of suspected crime. Police chasing a bank robber have more flexibility than police chasing the driver of a suspected stolen car.
The decision to abort a pursuit is left to operational police. Once a chase is declared, a sergeant or senior sergeant in the area is designated the pursuit controller. The radio channel is cleared and the chase can be called off if either the police driver or pursuit controller considers it too dangerous. Police are told to balance the need for apprehension against the risk to the community.
Other states adopt similar procedures. In March 2010, former New South Wales Police Minister, Michael Daley, argued there was no need for changes to the guidelines regulating police pursuits. Mr Daley stated, 'We're always happy to have suggestions about how to do things better but I'm satisfied that the guidelines that the police have in place now protect themselves and other road users.'
In Queensland police follow a Safe Driving Policy. This policy includes a decision making framework that is compatible with an operational officer's sequence of responses to various incidents. The policy includes non-pursuit matters and a detailed risk assessment process for other matters.
A similar, but even more conservative approach has been followed in Tasmania since 2000, where police will only conduct a high-speed pursuit if it is believed a serious crime against persons, such as assault or rape, has been committed.
The precise details of the pursuit guidelines followed by police in any state are never made public, as this would act as directions to criminals, telling them exactly how fast or how recklessly they had to drive in order to have the police call off a chase.
2. Police generally exercise sound judgement when conducting high-speed chases
It has been claimed that the police typically exercise caution when conducting high-speed police chases. Recent data from the Australian Capital Territory indicates that almost half of all pursuits were terminated by police. Around 20% of suspects stopped of their own accord, and slightly fewer when forced to do so by becoming cornered, becoming bogged, or running out of petrol. Only 10% of pursuits were concluded by a collision involving the suspect vehicle. These figures suggest that half of all pursuits are ended by the police presumably because the police judge it unsafe to continue.
The Victorian Deputy Police Commissioner, Kieran Walshe, has noted that police in his state had been involved in more than 600 pursuits in 2010, with most being abandoned. Mr Walshe has claimed that this reluctance to continue pursuits in hazardous circumstances demonstrates that police generally make the correct judgement. Mr Walshe stated, 'The vast number of pursuits our members get involved in, they do make the right call.'
Mr Walshe further noted that Victoria Police exercise this restraint despite the provocative behaviour of some motorists. He said hoons were increasingly taunting officers to chase them, aware that police must call off pursuits that endanger lives.
In March, 2010, the deaths of four people in an incident that occurred after a police chase led then New South Wales premier, Kristina Keneally to state, 'Our police officers follow very strict guidelines when it comes to police pursuits and they do so safely. We had police pull back from that pursuit and yet we still had this horrible tragedy occur.'
Defenders of current guidelines also argue that the fact that a pursuit may be followed by a death does not indicate that the police involved failed to exercise sound judgement.
A Queensland coronial review of police pursuit procedures published in 2010 stated, 'The current policy seeks to balance the risks created by engaging in a pursuit against the risks involved in allowing the suspected offender to escape immediate apprehension.' The review went on to note with regard to a number of deaths which had recently occurred in Queensland following a police pursuit, 'In three of the cases that this report is based on, the officer who was attempting to intercept another vehicle, discontinued or was preparing to discontinue that attempt soon after it became apparent the driver was not going to stop, yet the deaths still occurred. In those cases, quite clearly, the officers involved were not blameworthy...'
3. Greater restrictions would unreasonably limit the police
It has been argued that the only person capable of determining whether a high speed pursuit is justified is the police officers on the spot and the pursuit controller. Stricter guidelines would, it is claimed, only limit the police officers' capacity to make a balanced, informed decision.
Professor Paul Mazerolle, the director of the Key Centre for Ethics, Law and Justice at Griffith University in Queensland, has indicated that police are constantly trying to maintain a delicate balance of ensuring public safety while minimising risk of harm to individuals.
Professor Mazerolle has stated, 'There are good reasons and appropriate reasons to pursue, and there's times when police officers shouldn't pursue. It's that continual reassessment. A blanket statement that police should always pursue or police should not pursue, I think, is inappropriate.'
It has further been suggested that imposing greater restrictions on police freedom of action might actually put the community at greater risk. It has been argued that such restrictions would only encourage fleeing motorists to drive more recklessly in the belief that the police would then terminate the pursuit.
4. Greater restrictions would allow criminals more freedom to commit crimes
It has been claimed that police pursuits are necessary and that without the freedom to pursue suspects crime rates would increase. Those who hold this view note that restrictions on police pursuits would simply reassure criminals that they were unlikely to be apprehended.
In March, 2010, the Australian Capital Territory Police Minister, Simon Corbell, stated, 'This is difficult, but at the end of the day the government's view is that police must have the capacity to enforce their lawful directions, because if they can't ... it's a green light for people to simply flee police.'
Steve Wilkinson, a former police officer with ten years' service, stated, 'For every tragedy that occurs as a result of a police chase, many more are averted. You won't read about the lives saved on the roads and violent crimes prevented because of the arrest of suspects a, b, c... following successful pursuits in previous days, months, years which didn't result in deaths ...whilst prevention is better than cure, it obviously isn't newsworthy.'
Wilkinson further noted, 'What would they have our police do? Wave a white handkerchief at offending drivers and shout, "Stop. Or, I'll shout stop again." The response from crims would be predictable: a one-fingered salute as they accelerate into the sunset - or into the side of another innocent family's car.
It's a lovely notion: stop police pursuits and criminals will fall into line and adopt safe driving practices. Perhaps they'll take the sentiment further and leave behind a trail of happiness, good cheer and rose petals.'
In June, 2002, the then Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Ray Shuey stated, 'If you have a situation where there's a no-pursuit policy or concept there, the criminals will take over the whole of the community because they'd know they only had to go faster than a certain speed limit and police wouldn't engage in any sort of interception.'
Former Western Australian commissioner, Bob Falconer, has similarly stated, 'A no-pursuit policy only allows offenders to know they can avoid apprehension by speeding.'
5. The primary responsibility for any death or injury lies with the fleeing motorist
Supporters of police retaining the power to conduct high-speed pursuits stress that the responsibility for any death or injury as a result of a police chase rests with the motorist who flees.
This point has been stressed by former Victorian Assistant Commissioner and then West Australian Police Commissioner Bob Falconer. Mr Falconer states, 'Any Police officer worth his or her salt should chase people who flee from them. It is their job. Pundits need to accept the fact that there is no pursuit without flight,'
Steve Wilkinson, a former police officer with ten years' service, stated, 'What most people forget is that it's usually the crims moronic behaviour behind the wheel that brings them under notice in the first place. Police simply move in behind them and give them an option. A simple option. A safe option: to stop.'
In March, 2010, the Opposition leader, Barry O'Farrell stated, 'Ultimately, government can't protect all of us from people who make the wrong choices. What we need to do is to instil some more personal responsibility and try and make sure people understand there will be consequences for action.'
As part of a bid to acknowledge that the primary responsibility in an incident involving a fleeing motorist rests with that driver, New South Wales introduced Skye's Law in February 2010. Under this law drivers involved in high-speed police pursuits will face jail sentences of up to three years, with a maximum term of five years for repeat offenders.