Apertura de datos

The end-of-year Schoolies Week celebrations — where it has been estimated that between 50,000 and 133,000 school leavers from across several Australian states gather on the Gold Coast — have been described as ‘the largest sustained policing event in Australia’ (Wray 2006; QPS 2007a). The QPS has been a central player in the

development of an increasingly sophisticated and multi-agency response that has been developed since ‘the blood-soaked Schoolies of 2002’ when serious violence, including stabbings, assaults and fights, drew a great deal of media attention and public concern (Wray 2006).

Since 2003 the state government has become actively involved in the management of the Schoolies Week celebrations and has coordinated a range of strategies to improve safety and security (QLA (Bligh) 2007, p. 3520). The government agencies now involved in managing Schoolies Week include police, Emergency Services, Health, Liquor Licensing, Education, Transport and Communities. These agencies work in partnership with the Gold Coast City Council, security staff, licensees and other businesses, as well as a large number of volunteers from organisations such as Red Frog Australia (QLA (Bligh) 2007, p. 3520). The partnership approach seeks to implement a range of strategies focusing on the government’s three-point plan for (1) better coordination, (2) improved safety and (3) awareness of rights and responsibilities.

Key strategies have included:

• Increasing police numbers. It was reported there were around 100 officers at Schoolies Week in 2002, about 285 in 2003, over 900 officers in 2004, and more than 1000 in 2005 and 2006 (QLA (Beattie) 2003a, p. 5123; QLA (Spence) 2004, p. 3736; QLA (Spence) 2006, p. 594).

• Increasing police visibility. The increased police numbers have assisted with this but other strategies include the use of mounted police to provide highly visible patrols.

• Ensuring compliance with government regulations and licensing requirements.

Police working in close partnership with liquor licensing officers has been an important focus.

• Emphasis on prevention and early intervention. This has increasingly become the focus of police intervention. In 2007 a network of more than 40 CCTVs was used to monitor ‘hot spots’ so that on-the-ground crews could be requested to respond to potential flare-ups as they were happening.

• Pre-Schoolies Week education of school leavers through schools.

• Wristband identification of school leavers.

• Promotion of organised events and activities.

• Introduction in 2007 of a patrolled, security-fenced beach area, into which only school leavers can be admitted.

• More effective media and public affairs management by the QPS and Schoolies Week organisers.

The CMC believes that the POPP program is well suited to dealing with the issues associated with the public nuisance behaviours of ‘party people’. For example, in Chapter 9 we presented results showing that public nuisance offending often occurs in and around key public spaces associated with entertainment venues such as pubs and clubs (that is,

‘hot spots’). The report also identifies that public nuisance offending is more likely to occur at certain times or on certain days of the week. The real strength of POPP is that it

identifies patterns in police data, such as the place or time that an offence occurred, to inform and drive police and community efforts towards eliminating (or minimising) the problems associated with the policing of public nuisance.

In relation to ‘street people’, the QPS has also engaged in development of initiatives that are consistent with the POPP framework. These partnership strategies include:

• A Mental Health Crisis Intervention Project established in collaboration with ambulance officers and Queensland Health. This project’s objectives include the de-escalation of situations involving people with a mental illness; 285 police received specialist training under this project (QPS 2006b, p. 5).

• The Homelands Project initiated in mid 2004 by the Cairns Police District to address the historical problem of homelessness in Cairns and the related problems of public drunkenness, anti-social behaviour, criminal acts and low feelings of public safety.

The project involves taking people affected by alcohol to identified places of safety, providing links to relevant support networks and agencies, and assisting displaced people to return home to their communities. The homeless people involved are predominantly Indigenous.

Although there has been some criticism of the Homelands Project for displacing problems rather than addressing them (see Guppy 2007a, 2007b), the project’s success in addressing the underlying causes of the behaviour of ‘street people’ in Cairns has been recognised through the receipt of a number of awards, including the 2005 QPS Gold Medal (Lantern) award for Problem Orientated Policing Projects;

Highly Commended in the 2005 Queensland Premier’s Awards for Excellence; and the 2006 Prime Minister’s National Drug and Alcohol Award — Excellence in Policing (QPS 2006b, pp.31 & 83).

The courts in Queensland are also involved in a number of initiatives that seek to address the underlying behaviour of ‘street people’:

• The pilot Homeless Persons Court Diversion program established in the Brisbane Magistrates Court from 2006, which is run in conjunction with the court’s ‘special circumstances’ list, which has operated since 2005 for those matters involving offenders who suffer from mental or intellectual impairment (Chief Magistrate, pp. 4–5). This program allows courts to make orders such as bail or recognisances with conditions aimed at addressing the causes of offending, rather than simply imposing fines.

• The Cairns Alcoholic Offenders Remand and Rehabilitation Program (CARRP), developed in 2003 by Cairns magistrates to deal with ‘street people’ in Cairns charged with drunkenness and public order offences — people who are mostly homeless Indigenous people, according to the Chief Magistrate (p. 5). The program provides an opportunity for offenders to address their alcohol-induced offending behaviour through a conditional bail program requiring residence at a rehabilitation facility for one month.

CHAPTER 14: MANAGING PUBLIC ORDER: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 135 The review heard a great deal of enthusiasm for approaches that address the underlying cause of public nuisance as a much better approach than the more usual response

provided by the courts to public nuisance offences — that is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the imposition of a fine penalty. However, there is no simple solution to the complex underlying issues that may lead to public nuisance offending. It is likely that most public nuisance offenders will continue to receive a fine penalty, for reasons including:

• there may be no appropriate penalty other than the imposition of a small fine for some public nuisance behaviours (for example, public urination)

• there are difficulties in effectively implementing community service orders, especially for remote Indigenous communities (ATSILS (Mt Isa) consultations,

13 September 2006)

• those offenders who are least likely to be able to pay a fine are also unable to perform community-based orders because they are ‘too drunk or they do not turn up, don’t have a licence, or cannot do what is required’ (ATSILS (Mt Isa)

consultations, 14 September 2006)

• good behaviour bonds are of limited use for repeat offenders with complex problems

— it is setting them up to fail — and the only real penalty options available for these people are a fine or imprisonment (Magistrates’ consultations, 20 September 2006).

Despite the positive initiatives of the courts described above, including the Homeless Persons Court Diversion program in Brisbane, it is likely that the capacity of the courts to provide or expand such programs will be limited. The criminal justice system does not provide the best method to address underlying issues leading to crime, but merely provides one final filter before the sanction for inappropriate behaviour is to be imposed.

The Commission encourages the continuing identification, development and

implementation of strategies to address the underlying issues leading to public nuisance offending at various points throughout the criminal justice system’s response. More importantly though, the Commission recognises that although the police are most often the agency called upon to provide the front-line response, there is much that can and should be done by other agencies to prevent the need for criminal justice system involvement. For example, the provision by local councils of public toilet facilities open at the time revellers are leaving nightclubs could well reduce the number of public nuisance offences.

Providing adequate facilities and services for the homeless should also have that effect. The responsible service of alcohol by liquor licensees is another strategy that should minimise the likelihood of intoxicated people behaving in a manner that requires police intervention.

It is clear that the most effective response requires a commitment from state and local government, non-government agencies, businesses and the community generally to work in partnership to ensure that our public spaces are available to, and enjoyed by, all sectors of the community.

Recommendation 5:

That the relevant State government departments (such as the Department of Communities, Queensland Health, Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation) and local councils continue to work with other agencies, businesses and the community to develop, implement and evaluate programs to address the underlying causes of public nuisance offending prior to involvement of the criminal justice system. This should include, for example, that the state government continue to work with the liquor industry to develop strategies to manage the consumption of alcohol and prevent behaviour associated with alcohol consumption triggering a criminal justice system response.

That the QPS and other agencies work in partnership to continue to

identify strategies to deal with the problem of public nuisance and to divert offenders at various stages throughout the criminal justice system. This should include, for example:

• that the QPS continue to use POPP as a framework for dealing with public nuisance offences that occur in and around public spaces or at entertainment venues such as pubs and clubs (that is, ‘hot spots’)

• that the Department of Justice and Attorney-General continue to work with other agencies to develop and evaluate court diversionary programs such as the pilot Homeless Persons Court Diversion

program in Brisbane and the Cairns Alcoholic Offenders Remand and Rehabilitation Program in order to identify and implement effective programs.