Page 2317 - Week 06 - Thursday, 6 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The separation of remanded and sentenced detainees remains a challenge for ACT Corrective Services (ACTCS), due to the high numbers of remand detainees, and the complexities of managing a range of detainee cohorts in the one facility. Because of this, ACTCS relies on the application of section 44(4) of the Corrections Management Act 2007 to address separation arrangements at the AMC. Sub-section (4) provides that, “…the director-general may give directions for different accommodation of a non-convicted detainee if the director-general suspects, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary to ensure the safety of the detainee or anyone else”.
2) The format of data and the analysis required to provide the information requested, would take substantial time and resources to produce. In order to give an indication of statistics a random data sample has been examined.
On 15 April 2019, there were 79 occasions where a remanded detainee and sentenced detainee shared the same cell.
3) On each occasion referred to in my answer to Question 2, there was one remandee in the cell at the time.
Emergency services—communications
(Question No 2433)
Mrs Jones asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 5 April 2019:
(1) How many priority one cases were generated by COMCEN in 2016-17 and (a) how many of these cases were removed from the data for the Report on Government Services reporting and (b) what is the rationale and/or the caveats for removing these cases.
(2) How many priority one cases were generated by COMCEN in 2017-18 and (a) how many of these cases were removed from the data for the Report on Government Services reporting and (b) what is the rationale and/or the caveats for removing these cases.
Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) There were 17,471 priority one cases generated by COMCEN in 2016-17.
a. The total number of priority one cases removed from the data for the 2016-17 year is 2,085.
b. Cases are graded on the information available at the time. These may be re graded as further information on the case becomes available. If this process of re-grading is not undertaken, it will have a false impact (both positive and negative) on response times. The re-grading process is consistent with how cases are recorded in all jurisdictions nationally. Examples on the types of occurrences where cases are re-graded include:
• Incident grade is not A1 (i.e. is not a priority one case)
• Incident type is “Stand-by”, “Vehicle Movement”, “Southcare” or “000”
• Resource Call sign is not Ambulance resource
• Difference between arrived time and left scene time is under 5 minutes
• Left scene time or on scene time is NULL
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video