1.3. Teorías relacionadas al tema
1.3.4. El modelo multidimensional del Bienestar Psicológico
Queensland courts data show a total of 25,244 public nuisance matters finalised in Queensland Magistrates Courts and Childrens Courts for offences occurring between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2005.
The courts data show that, after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence, the number of public nuisance matters increased by 13 per cent, from 11,87621 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) to 13,36822 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005). The median number of public nuisance matters for each month during these 12-month periods also increased, from 987 to 1082 matters. This increase was found to be statistically significant.
The rate of public nuisance matters per 100,000 population finalised in Queensland Magistrates Courts and Childrens Courts was also found to have increased by 10 per cent between the two periods under consideration in this review, from 310 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) to 342 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005). Between these periods the median rate per month of public nuisance matters per 100,000 Queensland population increased from 26 to 28. This increase was found to be significant.23
Figure 6 plots the rate of public nuisance matters finalised in Queensland’s Magistrates Courts and Childrens Courts for public nuisance offences that occurred24 between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2005.
Figure 6: Public nuisance matters finalised in Queensland’s Magistrates Courts and Childrens Courts during the 12-month periods before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Month Public nuisance matters finalised per 100000 population
Introduction of the new public nuisance offence
Apr 03 May 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 Aug 03 Sep 03 Oct 03 Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 Mar 04 Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 04 Sep 04 Oct 04 Nov 04 Dec 04 Jan 05 Feb 05 Mar 05
Source: Courts data
21 Childrens Courts = 633, Magistrates Courts = 11,243.
22 Childrens Courts = 680, Magistrates Courts = 12,688.
23 The larger increase in the number of public nuisance matters recorded in courts data than in police data is likely to be the result of different counting practices of the courts and police.
24 Note that the data on public nuisance matters were requested by offence date to ensure clear distinction between offences occurring and charged under the old legislation, and offences occurring and charged under the new legislation.
CHAPTER 8: HOW OFTEN ARE PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENCES OCCURRING? 57 Figure 6 shows that, although the rate of public nuisance matters per 100,000 population increased after the introduction of the new public nuisance legislation, it also increased during the 12 months before the introduction of the new public nuisance legislation (between April 2003 and March 2004). Further analysis of this data revealed a highly significant positive trend in the rate of public nuisance matters finalised per 100,000 population for offences occurring between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2005.
These results again suggest that the increased number of public nuisance matters shown in the courts data after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence is consistent with a trend that precedes the introduction of the new offence; the statistically significant increase in public nuisance matters finalised in Queensland’s courts after the introduction of the new offence is not likely to be solely the result of the change in legislation.
CoMpArISon oF our reSuLtS wItH tHoSe prevIouSLy pubLISHed
Our analysis of police data provides no support for the claim made on 26 October 2005 by the Hon. JC Spence in relation to public order issues in inner-city Brisbane. In her statement she suggested a link between the introduction of the new offence and figures for the 2004–05 financial year, indicating that ‘… obscene, insulting and offensive language used against police has risen by 2,600 per cent’ (Spence 2005b).
When we queried this figure with the QPS, the QPS checked and indicated that it was provided to the minister in error. The way police crime data are collected makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately identify those public nuisance offences committed against police, whether for language or for other behaviour. The QPS have indicated that they have taken steps to ensure that similar errors are not made in the future.
Our analysis of police and courts data does not provide support, either, for Dr Tamara Walsh’s heavily relied-on claim that the new public nuisance offence resulted in a
‘massive’ and ‘dramatic’ increase in the prosecution of the new public nuisance offence.
This claim was based particularly on a key finding said to show a 200 per cent increase in the number of prosecutions proceeding through the Brisbane Magistrates Court after the introduction of the new offence (2004b, pp. 20–1 & 36; 2005a, pp. 7 & 10; 2006a, p. 11).
Walsh’s results also include other figures said to demonstrate large increases in the prosecutions of public nuisance offences. Walsh’s observational court studies involved law students:
• attending Court 1 of the Central Brisbane Magistrates Court on every sitting day during the months of February 2004 (two months before the introduction of the new offence), July 2004 (three months after the introduction of the new offence) and July 2005 (15 months after the introduction of the new offence) and recording every case of language and offensive behaviour that was brought before the court
• attending Townsville Magistrates Court on every sitting day during the months of July 2004 (three months after the introduction of the new offence) and July 2005 (15 months after the introduction of the new offence) and recording observed cases of offensive language and behaviour (Walsh 2006a, pp. 10–12).
Our results for Queensland showed modest increases but nothing that could be described as ‘massive’ or ‘dramatic’ on the scale claimed by Walsh. To better compare our results with Walsh’s we analysed courts data for all public nuisance matters finalised in Brisbane Central Magistrates Court and Townsville Magistrates Court for the same months that Walsh conducted her studies.25 The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. For the purpose of comparison, Table 1 also lists the results recorded by Walsh (2006a).
Table 1: Brisbane Central Magistrates Court and Townsville Magistrates Court public nuisance counts collected by Walsh (2006a) during February 2004, July 2004 and July 2005, compared with counts obtained from Queensland courts data for the same time periods
brisbane Central (courts data)
brisbane Central (walsh 2006a)
townsville (courts data)
townsville (walsh 2006a)
February 2004 154 26 62 NA
July 2004 190 77 42 42
July 2005 181 111 74 58
Our results obtained on the basis of courts data are not consistent with the results obtained by Walsh through observational studies.
• Walsh claimed a 200 per cent increase in offences involving offensive language or behaviour between February 2004 and July 2004. The courts data suggest a 23 per cent increase in these offences between these times.
• Similarly, Walsh reported a 44 per cent increase in offensive language or behaviour matters in the Brisbane Central Magistrates Court between July 2004 and July 2005.
The courts data suggest a 5 per cent decrease in these matters in this court between the same times.
• In Townsville Magistrates Court, Walsh reported a 38 per cent increase in offensive language or behaviour matters between July 2004 and July 2005. The courts data suggest a 76 per cent increase in public nuisance matters during this time. (They also suggest a 32 per cent decrease in public nuisance matters between February 2004 and July 2004, but Walsh did not count offensive language or behaviour matters in Townsville before the introduction of the new offence.)
The difference between Walsh’s results and our results is likely to be explained by our different methodologies. While our research uses official courts data, Walsh’s used courtroom observations conducted by law students. Although observational techniques are valid forms of social science data collection, the reliability of the data collected using these techniques is easily compromised if the observational process is not sufficiently controlled. The main risks associated with the use of observational techniques are observer bias and human error (see Coolican 1990). Walsh (2004b, 2005a, 2006a) does not specify whether the research methodology used was piloted (to ensure reliability of observational counts) or provide any other details of quality controls.
Matters presented before the Magistrates Courts are processed rapidly, with significant variability in the description of the charges involved, the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances. As Legal Aid Queensland (2005, p. 31) found in its project on
homelessness and street offences, in arrest courts such as Courts 1 and 3 in the Brisbane Central Magistrates Court ‘the sheer volume of work demanded rapid disposition of matters — things moved quickly and, to the uninitiated, [incomprehensibly]’.
25 This methodology differed from the methodology used to obtain other results presented in this review. Matters were counted on the basis of order date in order to better approximate Walsh’s methodology, rather than by offence date, which is how we have counted public nuisance matters elsewhere.
CHAPTER 8: HOW OFTEN ARE PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENCES OCCURRING? 59 Our own experiences of observing public nuisance offences in Brisbane Central
Magistrates Court 1 suggest that these offences may be variously described in court as public nuisance, disorderly behaviour, offensive language or behaviour, indecent or obscene language or behaviour, violent or threatening language or behaviour, insulting language, abusive language or behaviour, and aggressive or confronting language or behaviour. Alternatively, the prosecution may simply report the words used or actions engaged in by the defendant without naming the offence at all. Often it is almost impossible for an observer to distinguish in court charges that are specifically for public nuisance behaviour from charges for other offences (such as public drunkenness, threatening violence, common assault and wilful exposure). These issues are further complicated by the high number of public nuisance matters that are heard ex parte.26 It is our view that Walsh’s results may have been affected by the following factors:
• Her very small sample size. Examining any data on the number of offences from one-month periods at particular points in time is not likely to produce reliable results. To accurately consider the frequency of any offence requires a sample size that is large enough to account for the usual fluctuations that may occur for a wide range of reasons, including seasonality.
• The possibility that her observers experienced learning effects over time, so that they became better able to identify public nuisance offences as they became more comfortable and familiar with the court environment. This may explain the decrease for July 2004 and July 2005 in the difference between our results obtained from the courts data and Walsh’s results.
• Different observers may have counted different things as public nuisance and this may have contributed to differences.
SuMMAry oF FIndIngS
We examined police and courts data to establish the frequency with which public nuisance offences are occurring in Queensland and to see whether the new public nuisance offence had resulted in an increased incidence of the offence.
We found:
• The number of public nuisance incidents recorded by police increased by 9 per cent from 13,916 in the 12 months before the new offence to 15,225 in the following 12-month period; the median number of incidents per month also increased from 1166 to 1221; this increase was not found to be statistically significant.
• Courts data show that the number of public nuisance matters increased by 13 per cent after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence; this increase was found to be statistically significant.27
When population growth is taken into account, the rate of public nuisance offending per 100,000 Queenslanders increased by 7 per cent according to the police data and by 10 per cent in the courts data (the increase in the court data was found to be statistically significant).
There is no evidence of large-scale increases in public nuisance after the introduction of the new offence; rather, these increases appear to be consistent with a steady upward long-term trend in public nuisance data over the 10 years from 1997.
26 A magistrate has power to deal with an offence of public nuisance where the defendant fails to appear in court to answer to the charge; this is referred to as ‘ex parte’.
27 The larger increase in the number of public nuisance matters recorded in courts data is likely to be the result of different counting practices of the courts and police.
9
wHere doeS pubLIC nuISAnCe oFFendIng oCCur In QueenSLAnd?
Our review of Queensland’s parliamentary debates and media clearly highlights a number of particular areas in the state where public order issues have attracted significant interest over a period of time. These include Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane’s CBD and the Fortitude Valley area, and the Gold Coast (particularly when it hosts the annual end-of-year Schoolies Week celebrations). Our submissions and consultations also reflected that these were key geographic areas of concern for public nuisance offending.
For example, in Townsville, where public nuisance was clearly a major issue, the Townsville City Council and police noted the two main locations of public nuisance activity:
1. Parks, where itinerant Indigenous people, many of them said to be from Palm Island, reside in Townsville and where the problem behaviours were described as
defecation, urination and fighting (QPS (Townsville) consultations, 11 September 2006).
2. The Flinders Street nightclub precinct, which has problems especially on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, with drunk people ‘fighting, urinating and wandering across the road in front of traffic’ (QPS (Townsville) consultations, 20 September 2006; Townsville City Council consultations, 12 September 2006).
A clear level of consensus emerged from submissions and consultations generally that public nuisance offending often occurs in CBDs and is frequently linked to the proximity of licensed premises (see, for example, submissions by Legal Aid Queensland, p. 10; Chief Magistrate, pp. 2 & 4; Caxton Legal Centre, p. 14).
We considered police data to examine:
• the links between public nuisance and proximity to licensed premises or parks
• regional differences in the impact of the new offence, but also to consider regional differences in public nuisance more generally.
wHAt Are tHe LInkS between pubLIC nuISAnCe oFFendIng And proxIMIty to LICenSed preMISeS or pArkS?
Police data about public nuisance offences show that:28
• the majority of public nuisance offences were recorded as occurring on a street (69%, n = 20,071) (which may include outside a licensed premises)29
• around 9 per cent of public nuisance offences were recorded as occurring in businesses (n = 2682) and a further 5 per cent were recorded as occurring on a licensed premises (n = 1466)
28 When recording details of a criminal incident, QPS officers are required to select one of approximately 66 keywords to describe the scene of that offence. The public nuisance data provided to the CMC by the QPS included reference to at least 63 of these scene classifications.
However, many of these scene classifications are similar or overlapping. In order to summarise this data, the CMC recoded the QPS data into 14 scene classifications. These classifications are listed in Appendix 1.
29 In three incident records the location (scene) of the public nuisance offences was not specified.
Further analysis of this variable excluded these records.
CHAPTER 9: WHERE DOES PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENDING OCCUR IN QUEENSLAND? 61
• about 7 per cent (n = 1890) of public nuisance offences occurred in recreational spaces such as parks
• around 4 per cent of public nuisance offences were recorded in private dwellings (n = 1249).30
When we compared the 12 months before and after the introduction of the new offence, we found:
• no change in the proportion of public nuisance offences occurring on a street
• statistically significant increases in the proportion occurring in businesses or on a licensed premises
• statistically significant decreases in the proportion occurring in private dwellings or in recreational spaces (see Appendix 7 for further details of the results of these analyses).
After the introduction of the new public nuisance offence, the QPS also began to record those offences ‘associated with a licensed premises’. This is clearly a broader category than the category of ‘on a licensed premises’. Of the public nuisance records made in the 12 months after the introduction of this data recording practice, 24 per cent (n = 2853) were described as being associated with licensed premises.
Further evidence of the links between public nuisance offending and licensed premises is provided by examining the days and times when public nuisance incidents are occurring.
Figures 7 and 8 present, respectively, police data on the days when public nuisance incidents occur, and the time of day or night.
Figure 7: Day on which public nuisance incidents occurred during the 12-month periods before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence
Percentage of all public nuisance incidents
10 20 30 40 50
Day of incident 0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005
Source: QPS data
30 As discussed in Chapter 4, a broad definition of ‘public place’ applies under both the old offence and the new public nuisance offence to capture places where the public is present; the provisions may also capture behaviour that takes place either in or outside a private place but which interferes with a public place. For example, some police indicated that the public nuisance offence could be of assistance in dealing with domestic disputes occurring on private premises (for example, QPS (Townsville) consultations, 20 September 2006).
Figure 8: Times of day that public nuisance incidents occurred during the 12-month periods before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence
Percentage of all public nuisance incidents
Time of incident (24-hour clock) 0
10 20 30 40 50
1:00–4:59 5:00–8:59 9:00–12:59 13:00–16:59 17:00–20:59 21:00–24:59 1 April 2003 to
31 March 2004 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005
Source: QPS data
Our analysis of the two-year data period shows that 45 per cent of public nuisance incidents occurred on Fridays and Saturdays and 61 per cent of public nuisance incidents occurred at night between the hours of 9 pm and 5 am. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing that this type of offence mostly occurs on the street or around pubs and clubs, from Friday through to Sunday during the night hours (see, for example, Travis 1983, p. 215).
wHAt Are tHe regIonAL dIFFerenCeS In tHe rAte oF pubLIC nuISAnCe?
Police data show differences in the degree and direction of change in the public nuisance rates after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence across Queensland’s QPS regions. (Appendix 8 provides a map of the QPS regions.) Figures 9(a) to 9(h) show the rate of public nuisance incidents per month per 100,000 population for each of the QPS regions for the 12 months before and after the introduction of the new offence (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, and 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005).
CHAPTER 9: WHERE DOES PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENDING OCCUR IN QUEENSLAND? 63 Public nuisance incidents: rate per QPS region
Figure 9(a): Far northern QpS region
Rate per 100000 population 40
Far Northern QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(c): Central QpS region
Rate per 100000 population
Month
Central QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(e): Metropolitan north QpS region
Rate per 100000 population 40
Metropolitan North QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(g): Southern QpS region
Rate per 100000 population
Month
Southern QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(b): northern QpS region
Rate per 100000 population
Month
Northern QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(d): north Coast QpS region
Rate per 100000 population 40
North Coast QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(f): Metropolitan South QpS region
Rate per 100000 population 40
Metropolitan South QPS region Queensland total
Figure 9(h): South eastern QpS region
Rate per 100000 population
Month
South Eastern QPS region Queensland total
Note: the vertical dotted line bisecting the plot indicates the introduction of the new public nuisance offence.
When we compared the 12-month periods before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence:
• The Metropolitan North and Metropolitan South QPS regions recorded statistically significant increases in the rate of public nuisance incidents per 100,000 population (by 25 per cent and 21 per cent respectively).
» In the Metropolitan North QPS region this increase was primarily the result of an increase in the rate in the Brisbane CBD and Fortitude Valley areas.
Comparing the 12 months before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence, the rate of public nuisance incidents per 100031 population in these areas (combined) increased by approximately 25 per cent, while the rate of incidents recorded in other parts of the Metropolitan North region only
Comparing the 12 months before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence, the rate of public nuisance incidents per 100031 population in these areas (combined) increased by approximately 25 per cent, while the rate of incidents recorded in other parts of the Metropolitan North region only