Guidelines followed in Clea Rose death – everything cool?

johnboy 29 March 2006 42

The ABC is reporting that the Liberal’s Steve Pratt has seen the findings of an internal police report on the role of officers in the death of Canberra student Clea Rose.

It says the officers chasing the car which hit the 21-year-old, acted in accordance with national pursuit guidelines.

Anyone think this level of disclosure is satisfactory?

UPDATED: The ABC reports that the ombudsman thinks an inquest is the only way to address any further public concerns about this matter.

FURTHER UPDATED: The Canberra Times is joined in with complaints by “Civil Liberties Australia ACT” (an arsefull piece of re-branding if ever there were) that Minister Hargreaves has broken his promises to them in this matter.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The ABC are saying the report has been released, and yet no report is on the ACT Policing website, so is this just media manipulation?

MORE UPDATES: The Canberra Times is going in hard with two stories. The first with the accusatory line “but they have refused to admit any responsibility for her death”, and another Jack Waterford rocket: Memorial to Clea should be review of pursuit policy.

Also in the Waterford piece:

The police made something of the fact that the inquiry was an entirely independent review, being conducted by the national AFP’s professional reporting standards unit. In fact the PRS subcontracted out the entire job to the ACT Policing collision investigation team – a section of the ACT traffic branch hardly at arm’s length from local vehicle patrolling.

(Also front page browsers would be well advised to take in the comments attached to this item as there are some excellent and lengthy contributions)

One More Update For The Road: The Canberra Times have got a usefull page with the reports they’ve been given as well as the video evidence.

No, I lied, here’s another update: The Canberra Times has also got John Hargreaves suggesting the guidelines on pursuit need reviewing and strong hints that there will be a coronial inquest.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
42 Responses to Guidelines followed in Clea Rose death – everything cool?
Filter
Order
Special G Special G 11:46 am 29 Mar 06

Some information cannot be released due to whatever reason, privacy or an ongoing investigation. If the media outlets do not withhold the relevant information etc. then they can’t be trusted with that information. Hence the Police media team. CT gets the information when it is able to be released, as do the other media outlets.

Mr CT editor at large commented that 30 years ago he used to get full access to everything. This has since been taken away. I am guessing they screwed up so many times that the priveledge of information access was removed.

Mael has got the transparency thing right. My comment may have been badly worded. The responsibilty and accountability are there and there are checks on those from a number of different sources.

Ari Ari 9:55 am 29 Mar 06

CT has been Police bashing as long as I can remember – why the hell would the Police release information to them.

So it’s OK for police to pick and choose what info is released to the public based on whether they like the media outlet or not?

Maelinar Maelinar 9:22 am 29 Mar 06

My comment re transparency was poorly worded – I must be on strong drugs at the moment…

I was considering this issue on the way to work this morning and believe there are two more appropriate words that should be used when talking about government departments; responsibility and accountability.

If a department is responsible about what it does and accountable for the way it does it, naturally their activities will be transparent.

Calling on a department to be transparent without a prerequisite responsibility or accountability can only ever result in them having something to hide, it’s a natural human response.

Transparency is for kinky lingere, responsibility and accountability is for government departments.

Is that a little clearer (pun) ?

Special G Special G 8:53 am 29 Mar 06

What I mean by that is that its a word people throw around when they are not getting what they want.

I trust you not to deal from the bottom of the deck. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be playing cars with you. Its that easy.

I would think that if the traffic branch was conducting the investigation, as they do with all road deaths in the ACT, they would do a thorough job. They would be overseen by the professional standards people and the whole lot is overseen by the ombudsman, Police minister and Coronor. Its not as if there are no checks on these people.

Or maybe its a big conspiracy cover up job from everybody. The kids in the car were really undercover government agents doing checks on the gloveboxes of cars in the legislative assembly car park for possible terrorism links.

Police stop people on London Cct every night. Sit outside Mooseheads and have a look sometime. Any one of those stops could turn into a similar incident.

johnboy johnboy 11:52 pm 28 Mar 06

Incidentally the phrase “transparency crap” does you little credit.

johnboy johnboy 11:51 pm 28 Mar 06

“just trust us” doesn’t cut it, never cuts it. How about next time we’re playing cards I deal from the bottom of the deck? Or how about next time you’re talking to a suspect you “just trust them” when they give you an alibi?

The report could have been released with all names changed to pseudonyms and no privacy implications whatsoever.

As for the report, no-one seems to be rebutting Waterfords’s claim that the traffic branch were investigating themselves.

Incidentally has anyone other than select media got a copy yet? Hardly “published” is it?

Although a fact sheet on the opening of the woden police station is up on the ACT Policing page so that’s nice isn’t it?

This isn’t a go at the cops on the ground that night (i’ll be the first to concede that in all probability they made the best decision available to them), it isn’t cop-bashing.

It’s about a disturbing pattern of behaviour from senior people in ACT Policing and their media unit.

Special G Special G 11:34 pm 28 Mar 06

People jump up and down about all the red tape and transparency crap.

The people who need to know have access to the details and have made comment that its all good. Thats why those people are elected in the positions that they hold. They are considered trustworthy. If you don’t like them vote them out.

A couple of days ago Jack Waterford had this to say “Many people expect that the report will focus on the conduct of the hapless police engaged in the car chase, and their alleged neglect of the victim who was hit by the stolen car”. After the release of the report and the pictures on the front page of the paper do I see Jack giving the Police officers involved an apology – not bloody likely.

VG said it right – those guys are normal blokes who were doing their job. They have to live with it as well. CT has been Police bashing as long as I can remember – why the hell would the Police release information to them.

I wouldn’t trust most reporters to keep a lid on any investigation when it would get in the way of a good news story.

Police are in a between a rock and a hard place at any time. The blame for this incident lays with the three little shits in the car. Particularly with the driver who made the ‘decision’ to put his foot down and turn right through a bus interchange.

Criminals have access to the internet and it is not that difficult to find pursuit guidelines. Then they do something specifically to get the police to call off the pursuit. Or they get in a few pursuits and work it out themselves. This ends up with people getting killled – either innocent bystanders (Clea Rose) or themselves (guy who drove off the end of Ginninderra Dr in 2004).

Each and every Police pursuit that ends badly brings up the discussion on Police Pursuit practice.

Have some faith in the people who put themselves on the line every day to do the job so you can sleep safe in your bed and not deal with the shit that they put up with.

Kerces Kerces 11:04 pm 28 Mar 06

Now this sounds like a case for an Freedom of Information request to me, if the report isn’t released. But my reading of the CT story this morning said they had a copy of the report (they even commented on how the names of witnesses had been blacked out), so it must have been released in some form.

And Mael, your last two sentences make very little sense to me. There should be no transaperency in government, but not releasing the name of a witness who saw an accident isn’t worth being mobbed over so it should be transparent?

TAD TAD 5:58 pm 28 Mar 06

Its all a matter of money.

In the ACT sending somebody to prison costs an absolute bucket load as we have to pay the NSW Government about $100k per prisoner/year to do so at one of their fine estabslishments.

I just hope that the judiciary can be a bit more flexible once the new prison is built.

(The current system is akin to not owning a vehicle and relying on getting taxis everywhere. The judiciary is limited by how many years that they can give out annually and does so sparingly)

johnboy johnboy 5:49 pm 28 Mar 06

well we won’t know what it would do as we can’t see it can we?

You think I’m left wing for wanting transparency? THanks for that, needed a good laugh.

less PC, less red tape, sounds good to me

just do it with the lights on and the blinds up.

DVD DVD 5:45 pm 28 Mar 06

We all know what happened. Baddies in stolen car run over innocent bystander while trying to evade Police.

100% of the responsibility for her death lays with the 3 worthless turds in the stolen car.

To quote Big Al – “What the hell would he have written if the story went like this – A drug addled fifteen year old driving a stolen car through the Civic interchange killing a pedestrian. Police had earlier seen the offender behind the wheel of the stolen car driving erratically in Braddon but decided not to do anything about it because after all, it’s just some young kids out having some fun … “ Couldn’t have said it better.

I fail to see what publicly issuing the Internal Report will do. Instead of the left wing public and politicians being so fixated on demanding transperancy why not try letting Police and other services do their job without being held back by red tape and political correctness.

Heavs Heavs 5:30 pm 28 Mar 06

The Courts sentence within guidelines set down by legislation, set by the elected government. Some members of the judiciary would dearly love to be able to wield a bigger stick but are restricted in doing so.
Perhaps talk to your local Member and get the legislation changed if you don’t like it might be the way to go instead of banging off about the inadequecies of the wallopers or the courts.

RandomGit RandomGit 4:44 pm 28 Mar 06

IMHO the only place in civilised society for transparency is kinky lingere

I’ll file that one under useful idiot.

Maelinar Maelinar 4:36 pm 28 Mar 06

Unless of course they were undercover cops about to bust the young group of people for illicit drug use or something like that, reliable witness but not something you really want to identify publicly in court until the other incident is resolved.

Completely hypothetical by the way, but possible and plausable.

That said, IMHO the only place in civilised society for transparency is kinky lingere. The identity of a person who saw somebody get run down by a vehicle isn’t going to get you murdered by the mob in any real hurry.

johnboy johnboy 4:15 pm 28 Mar 06

So because the details of the process haven’t been made public it’s reasonable to question the integrity of the process

In a nutshell! Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

The witnesses were all in a public place so as far as I’m concerned their “privacy” is totally irrelevant.

DJ DJ 2:51 pm 28 Mar 06

So because the details of the process haven’t been made public it’s reasonable to question the integrity of the process? Do you not think justice was done and that the Police were at fault in any way? I believe that the privacy of the witnesses who may not want to be identified is paramount. The Police have nothing to hide and as was stated above by Spectra

b) The reason given for not releasing the report fully yet is that they’re still checking with lawyers over privacy issues. In spite of how the ABC report is worded, they haven’t said they never intend to hand over the full report.

johnboy johnboy 2:28 pm 28 Mar 06

it reduces transparency and that is a greater threat to the community in the long term than threats to privacy.

justice has to be seen to be done as well you know.

DJ DJ 2:19 pm 28 Mar 06

It’s not funny – it’s serious, that’s why it’s secret. I’m sure if you asked individual Government agencies they all are accountable – they don’t disclose their how and why for very good reasons. It isn’t conspiracy theory stuff unless you make it so.

johnboy johnboy 1:58 pm 28 Mar 06

funny how concerned for the privacy of others some agencies of Government become, when they want their own affairs to remain secret.

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 1:52 pm 28 Mar 06

“A bright young lady is dead. Waterford and his legions of bleeding-heart pinko’s should show some god-damn respect and stop looking for scape-goats and start focusing on the fact that the little shit-bag who killed her is only doing 18 months soft-time in a youth detention centre, or the fact that the courts seem to be able to take into account the fact that he was forced to wear shoes as a youngster and that his daddy never built him a billy-cart when sentencing.”

Exactly.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site