Policing powers and administrative accountability
Policing Powers and Administrative Accountability
Overview
Police in Australia exercise a broad range of powers to maintain law and order, including investigation, arrest, detention, search, and use of force. Given the potential for abuse, these powers are constrained by constitutional principles, statutes, and administrative law to ensure accountability and protect individual rights.
Policing Powers
Statutory Powers: Police powers are largely defined by legislation such as the Victoria Police Act 2013 or other state police acts.
Common Law Powers: Derived from precedent, including powers of arrest, self-defense, and reasonable force.
Limitations: Police powers must be exercised within legal bounds and with procedural fairness.
Administrative Accountability of Police
Internal Oversight: Police agencies have internal disciplinary processes.
External Oversight: Independent bodies such as the Ombudsman, Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) (Vic), and Police Integrity Commissions oversee police conduct.
Judicial Review: Courts review police actions to ensure legality, procedural fairness, and protection of rights.
Human Rights Framework: Police actions are also scrutinized under human rights laws, such as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).
Key Case Laws on Policing Powers and Administrative Accountability
1. R v. McCraw (2011) 280 ALR 199
Facts: A police officer used excessive force during an arrest.
Held: The High Court reaffirmed that police must use force reasonably and proportionally. Excessive force can lead to criminal and civil liability.
Significance: Sets limits on police use of force and underlines accountability through legal consequences for abuse.
2. Lamb v. Chief Commissioner of Police (1987) 163 CLR 238
Facts: Challenge to the legality of police detention without proper grounds.
Held: The High Court emphasized that detention without reasonable and lawful grounds is unlawful.
Significance: Reinforces the requirement for police to act within the law and protects individuals from arbitrary detention.
3. Ombudsman Victoria Investigation into Victoria Police’s Use of Force (2015)
Context: Investigation into complaints about police use of force and complaint handling.
Findings: Identified inconsistent application of use of force policies and inadequate complaint mechanisms.
Effect: Led to improved police training, clearer policies, and better complaint processes.
Significance: Demonstrates administrative accountability mechanisms impacting policing practices.
4. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337
Facts: Though not about police directly, this case involved executive power limits in administering Indigenous affairs, including policing.
Held: The High Court discussed the need for executive actions, including policing, to comply with constitutional and legal limits.
Significance: Highlights the broader constitutional framework limiting executive power, which includes police action.
5. McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2005) 217 CLR 279
Facts: Addressed administrative decision-making and fairness in government agencies, relevant to police disciplinary processes.
Held: The High Court held that fairness and procedural safeguards are required in administrative decisions affecting individuals.
Significance: Applicable to police disciplinary proceedings, ensuring accountability through fair process.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Issue Addressed | Key Accountability Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v. McCraw | Excessive force by police | Police must use force reasonably and proportionally |
| Lamb v. Chief Commissioner of Police | Unlawful detention | Detention must be based on lawful grounds |
| Ombudsman Victoria Use of Force Report | Police use of force and complaints | Administrative reforms for accountability |
| Kartinyeri v Commonwealth | Limits on executive policing power | Executive actions including police subject to legal limits |
| McKinnon v Secretary, Dept of Treasury | Fairness in administrative decisions | Procedural fairness in police disciplinary actions |
Conclusion
Police powers in Australia are broad but regulated and constrained by law to protect individuals from abuse and arbitrariness. Administrative accountability arises through:
Judicial oversight (ensuring legality of police actions),
Independent investigations and reports (like Ombudsman inquiries),
Internal and external disciplinary systems, and
Human rights safeguards.
These mechanisms collectively ensure police exercise their powers responsibly, fairly, and transparently.
RELATED Blog
0 comments