From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Police and their responsibilities in Australia (was Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself)
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 01:13:43 GMT

malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:

>A month ago, I challenged him to provide hard proof (citation of
>either the law or the court decision) that the police in Australia are
>legally liable for damages resulting from a failure to carry out their
>(claimed) responsibility to protect an individual.

	I have been consulting certain learned Professors Sean.  As I
warned at the time I have other responsibilities apart from chasing down
obscure points of law for you and others in t.p.g., however this is what
I've found out...

>From my response to his reply to that posting:

>|>	However, I do know that here, the police are required to respond, 
>|>or at least endeavour to respond to all calls made to them by the public.  
>|>Failure to do so can bring charges of criminal negligence against them 
>|>individually.   Such charges have been brought in the past, and have resulted
>|>in prison sentences for those concerned.
>|
>|There is a _big_ difference between being required to _respond_ and
>|being required to _protect_. All being required to respond does is
>|make the police show up in response to a call; being required to
>|_protect_ makes the police legally liable for damages if someone is
>|has a crime committed against them in an area patrolled by the police.
>|For example, catching a rapist after he has raped a woman is a failure
>|to protect that woman; if the police have a legal responsibility to
>|_protect_ individuals, the victim will be able to collect damages from
>|the police for having failed to prevent the rape, regardless of
>|whether they were there or not.
>|
>|>	In addition police cannot simply stand by and watch a crime being
>|>committed and not act.  Again charges of negligence can be brought against
>|>them.
>|
>|This was already covered; US police officers _are_ required to intervene
>|in crimes that they witness (at least while they're on duty, and
>|almost all police officers will intervene in crimes they witness when
>|off-duty as well). You're dodging my question.

>|>	Sean, thats your problem and you can seek to either avoid making your
>|>police accountable to the public demand for protection, or you can simply
>|>ignore it and carry a gun yourself because you don't feel you need police
>|>protection.   However, when someone points out that in other, more civilised
>|>parts of the world, the police are made accountable for their actions, don't
>|>start claiming that it doesn't happen, or that it doesn't exist.
>|
>|Then supply proof that it _does_ exist. The US Supreme Court has ruled
>|that US police officers are not legally liable for damages as a result of
>|failing to _prevent_ a crime; prove that Australian police officers
>|_are_, and I (and probably a good fraction of the other people reading
>|this group that contest your position) will concede your arguments in
>|this instance.


>It's been a month, Brian; surely between you and your faculty, it
>can't be _that_ hard to find a law that is the most fundamental
>advantage your most civilized and enlightened culture has over us
>poor, benighted Americans -- the knowledge that your police _must_
>protect you, that you can rest secure knowing that if your body turns
>up in the Outback shot seventeen times, your relatives will be able to
>collect fantastic amounts of damage from the police for having failed
>in their legal obligation to _protect_ you.

	OK, according to Dr.John Seymour here at the ANU Law Faculty.  The
Police in Australia are legally responsible for their actions and can be
sued for any damages resulting from their failure to respond to a call
both collectively and individually.  Whilst not actually codified into
law, the police duties statement (their orders to themselves as to what
their responsibilities are) does state that they are required to respond
to all calls which are made to them to the best of their ability.
	In addition, if a situation similar to that King beating was to
develop, the police officers who stood around and either ignored their
colleagues beating King or who actively encouraged them to do so, can both
be charged as an accomplice and as being criminaly negligent in their duties.
Therefore, the current situation where the police officers in LA who
witnessed the King beating are being let off scot free could not occur here
in Australia.  
	The Police also, as a matter of policy are tightly controlled and
would be forced by the responsible minister to conduct an investigation
into any such occurance where they failed to respond to a call (I point to
the recent announcement in the papers here that the NSW police are following
the lead of other police forces in other Australian states and installing
special log recording equipment on their phones so that it can be proved
in a court of law if a particular call was recieved and at what time it was
responded to).
	So Sean, I admit that I was only half right (and you were only half
wrong).  The Police are not _legally_ required to respond but can be 
_legally_ held responsible for their actions and sued if they fail to
protect an individual.  They are though, both politically and duty bound
to respond.

>But we haven't heard word one from Brian about this; perhaps he's
>discovered that the Australian police do not, after all, have any
>legal obligation to protect any given individual, and he's hoping
>we've forgotten about it . . .

	Nope Sean, I was actually preparing a more comprehensive reply,
but decided that I should followup to this posting instead.  I hadn't
forgotten, just that these things take time, something you don't seem to
appreciate all that much.....



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns