Page 5134 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The threshold set by the AFP for the use of a taser is governed by commissioner’s orders, which police officers must comply with under the AFP act and regulations. Ultimately though, the testing ground for the appropriateness or otherwise of applications of force by police will rest with the judiciary—the criminal and coronial courts.
There are five main points that appear to be of concern to the judiciary when reviewing the use of force by police. These are: (1) was the application of force necessary; (2) was the level of force used proportionate to the level of resistance offered; (3) were all options considered; (4) were injuries sustained consistent with the level of resistance offered; and (5) was force applied in good faith or was it applied maliciously or sadistically. There is sufficient legal precedent on these topics that I really do not need to go into them any further except to observe that there is a clear legal framework for the assessment of the appropriateness of the use of force by police.
The AFP Commissioner only authorises the use of a taser when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that its use is reasonably necessary in order to defend themselves or others from physical injury in circumstances where protection cannot be afforded less forcefully, to arrest a suspect whom the police officer believes on reasonable grounds poses a threat of physical violence and the arrest cannot be effected less forcefully, to resolve an incident where a person is acting in a manner likely to seriously injure themselves and cannot be resolved less forcefully, or to deter attacking animals.
At this juncture I think it is important to pause and reflect for a moment that police take an oath to willingly put themselves in harm’s way on behalf of our community in order to protect the community. They do so under the most stringent measures of accountability and scrutiny internally, externally and through the courts.
Like any employer, the AFP has legislated obligations to provide police with the best possible training, skills and tools with which to do their jobs effectively and safely. Tasers are but one of a range of tools available to police to employ in a dynamic continuum of force model that has at its core the fundamental notions of good communication, negotiation and the resort to a minimum amount of force reasonably necessary in a given circumstance.
A continuum of force model contrasts with the old-fashioned linear model involving the escalated hierarchy in this seriousness of use-of-force-options. The primary objectives of the continuum of force model should always be the de-escalation of a confrontational situation and reducing the risk of harm. Real world experience demonstrates that police will, from time to time, continue to be confronted by violent people and, therefore, they do require appropriate force options to deal with those circumstances.
Indeed, the underpinning purpose of the AFP Commissioner’s orders on use of force is to ensure that AFP officers operate to de-escalate potential conflict situations. The AFP stresses the use of minimum force and maintains the preference at all times to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video