Police Powers And Responsibilities Act 2000 (QLD)

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

The Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (commonly abbreviated as LEPRA), is a piece of legislation which was introduced into the State of New South Wales in response to the Wood Royal Commission enquiry into NSW Police. The Commission identified that there was a strong reliance on the common law in relation to the powers of law enforcement officers, and recommended that there was enough desirability to have these powers (and as a consequence the rights of ordinary citizens) more clearly defined via statute to protect both parties interests . These recommendations were made in an effort to better achieve social justice, and to ensure that there was a sufficient balance between what the police can legally do, and what

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

This paper will discuss issues related to the use of excessive force by the police. In doing this the paper will look at the concepts such as the need for police officers to use force, the definition of excessive force and causes that contribute to the use of excessive force. The paper identifies inadequate training, adrenalin overload, accidental application and retribution as the major causes of the use of excessive force. In order to reduce the use of excessive force as a result of these circumstances, the paper argues that it is instrumental to provide adequate training as well as regular training to police officers in order to improve their relations with the community and reduces occurrences involving the use of excessive force.

The way police manage critical incidents is of upmost importance. An incident that is manged well, will raise public confidence in the police, however if the incident is managed poorly it can have devastating effects on the victim and the general public will subsequently lose confidence in the police. ACPO’s definition of a critical incident is as follows “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family and/or the community” (Constabulary, December 2007) Any police officer can notify an incident as possibly critical, therefore, police officers must always be aware of the potential for any incident to escalate and become critical. A critical incident can include; Suspicious, unexplained deaths, Homicides, Incidents requiring a police firearms response, Vulnerable persons missing from home, Domestic Violence, Crimes involving particularly vulnerable or young victims and hate crimes, which will be our focus. For our essay, we will be critically analysing Leicestershire’s police force’s ‘critical incident’ management of the case of Fiona Pilkington which is a case of anti-social behaviour that deeply affected public confidence. Whenever a critical incident is identified, it must be addressed sharp and efficiently. Reassuring, rebuilding and maintaining the confidence of the victim, their family and community should be fundamental to critical incident management (Thames Valley Police,

The New South Wale’s police system have failed to meet the needs of its society due to the misuse and misconduct of its given powers. The police have a large amount of discretion

Moreover, for police officers, those who are accused of crimes are protected by the Constitutional Rights that the Charter embeds and are permitted to challenge any actions police officers may have taken beyond their control (Griffiths, C. T., 2014, p.93). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents them from abusing their power in multiple ways. This includes omitting any illegal evidence in court and making it inadmissible, creating a guideline for lawful arrests, and making sure that their use of force is proportionate to the situation and circumstances. (Griffiths, C. T., 2014, p.93-95). In addition, The Criminal Code permits police officers the right to arrest individuals in whom they think have committed an offence though before making an arrest they are to strictly contact the Justice Personnel although this changes within different circumstances (Griffiths, C. T., 2014, p.94-95). However, The Supreme Court of Canada implemented a guideline that police officers must follow when using a search warrant that ultimately includes reporting it and having it being given by a Justice Personnel before taking any action (Griffiths, C. T., 2014, p.98). Entrapment is not tolerated by the Criminal Code in circumstances in which an individual is nearly forced to commit a crime they wouldn’t have committed without the presence of an officer, although the advantage to using this mechanism would be that it cost-effective and may be more beneficial to the victim (Griffiths, C. T., 2014, p.102) The Criminal Code of Canada is also responsible for laying out the guidelines that permits police officers to use force. This includes being permitted to use one-plus-one use of force in situations where only it is applicable and requires an immediate response as well as the use of discretion in which the officer is free to choose the way they approach a situation

Law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. The individual officer is granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law. Their ultimate duty is to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2006).

The countries newspapers in pursuance of the recent outrages conducted throughout September 1863, soon came forth with more damning editorials commanding explanations from the NSW Legislative Assembly as to why the NSW police were so reluctant to engage the bushrangers, therefore, if the troopers conduct at Marsh's Farm was anything to go by then the colony and public were completely misreading the ability of the NSW police during this period, the following is from the 'Sydney Mail', 10th October,

Which has encouraged the representation of a police subculture which glorifies crime fighting (Dick, 2005). There is a belief that individuals who are considered to be more authoritarian are more likely to apply for a career in policing, and these individuals are more prone to violence (Belur, 2009). Police routinely over-use coercive authority when they are encouraged to maintain a purpose of fighting the war against crime (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). This can further encourage other officers to believe that using force against criminals is a desirable method of controlling crime (Belur, 2009). However the United Kingdom is a country that does not condone any killing of its members, therefore the issue of police killing being deemed as legal creates friction between the public and police (McCulloch, 1989).

The dictionary definition of the police is “the organized civil force of a state, concerned with maintenance of law and order, the detection and prevention of crime, etc,” (Collins English Dictionary, 2002). This definition states the minimum of what the police actually do. Providing support for families, protecting society from criminals and responding to calls 24 hours a day 7 days a week are just some of the other roles that police have to deal with. In this essay the evolution of the police will be discussed as well as how the police are facing challenges.

This paper will describe police power and police authority. I will also talk about police discretion as for as whom gets locked up and who is allowed to go free. This paper will discuss the different use of police force. In this paper I will also talk about police attitude, police misconduct, and physical abuse among police officers.

This report shall examine the role of the police in the criminal justice system. For background it will detail a brief history of the development of the police then look at the later development of police powers of arrest, detention and of stop and search. Further to this it will examine the role of the police in miscarriages of justice and the effects of these miscarriages on the development of safeguards for people detained by the police. Also the measures taken to prevent further miscarriages of justice such as the development of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the evidence is there and a prosecution is likely to be successful.

Policing is a vital and visible component of our criminal justice system. To protect and serve is a basic responsibility of every police department, specifically in Canada. In Canada, citizens have a lot of faith in the police, as they look forward to police for any kind of safety concerns they may have, yet people are also very quick to judge the police. The police play an important role in minimizing threats and maximizing safety of their citizens. The role of the police in our society is shaped by social, economic and political factors.