Brian Halwood was victimised for no other reason than doing his job as Secretary of the Cessnock Inmate Development Committee (IDC) on behalf of his fellow inmates.

In his capacity as Secretary of the IDC, carrying out the minuted decisions of its meetings, he wrote letters to Justice Action and the Minister for Corrective Services, Mr. Debus, that were critical of the system and certain staff.

Upon discovery of the letters on the computer where he was working, Brian was removed from his job as clerk to the prison chaplain and banned from further use of any computer within the prison.

As a result, Justice Action has not received the letters which the Cessnock IDC decided to send.

Brian was then hauled before the Program Review Committee with a recommendation for a reduction in his classification from C3 to C2 and transfer to another prison.

The Program Review Committee ruled that Brian should not lose his C3 classification or be transferred to another prison, and should be allowed to continue his studies.

Despite these recommendations, the Governor has refused to allow Brian to continue with his studies. Furthermore, he has lost access to privileges and weekend leave.

Every prison in NSW has an operational agreement which provides that formal Inmate Development Committee meetings must be held and minutes kept. Its members are to be elected representatives. Annexure 7 to the Agreement provides: ³Its existence affirms the Departmentıs and local managementıs commitment to support and maintain the right of inmates to discuss and resolve with senior management, issues and problems affecting their imprisonment.²

In meetings with the Criminal Justice Coalition, the Minister and members of the Department have assured us of support for IDCs and their ability to consult with community groups such as Justice Action.

The victimisation of Brian Halwood flies in the face of any commitment to such policies.

It is a blatant use of intimidation tactics to keep prisoners quiet. The remaining delegates on the Cessnock IDC fear further repercussions and are considering resigning from the Committee.

Corrective Services staff are abusing their power, carrying out private vendettas against prisoners without justification. Such abuse is traditionally covert and insidious. Rarely is it brought to the attention of the wider community.

Justice Action has raised the matter with the Minister, who has called for an investigation. He assures us that the matter is being taken seriously.

In his three year sentence, Brian Halwood has received no misconduct reports or charges. He completed a TAFE Certificate in micro computing, edited a prison newsletter, chaired the AIDS Awareness Committee, was Treasurer of the Inmate Amenities Service and, to his eventual detriment, Secretary of the Inmate Development Committee.

Sarah Hopkins

To top of page

Australia's two major crime fighting bodies are operating with inadequate complaints and disciplinary mechanisms, according to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). Clearly the community must have confidence that complaints against police are being investigated, but the present system is inadequate and in urgent need of change. In fact, the National Crime Authority currently has no mechanism for external review of complaints, and the Australian Federal Police's system is highly outdated. Perhaps they believe they are beyond complaint. Think again!

The ALRC will be holding public consultation as to what makes a good police complaints system? People who have made or considered making complaints against the Police, legal practitioners and others with experience are encouraged to contribute. Call the Commission on 284 6332 for information.

DISCLOSURE OF CONVICTION INFORMATION ON EX-OFFENDERS

The Privacy Committee has responded to Justice Actionıs letter of October 1993, regarding the Commonwealth Employment Serviceıs policy on collection, use and disclosure of conviction information on ex-offenders. Following receipt of our letter expressing concern on this issue, the Committee made representations to the Privacy Commissioner. The policy is to be replaced ³by one which involves selective use of a more limited range of conviction information, and general precautionary advice to prospective employers.² Time frame? Your guess is as good as ours. Better late than never.

ONE NATION UNDER ONE CODE

For the last four years a group of lawyers and criminal law experts from all Australian jurisdictions have been involved in a project with enormous implications for criminal law in this country. The Model Criminal Code project aims to have uniform criminal codes for every serious offense in place throughout Australia by 2001.

The idea is to simplify the law, reduce complications, make the jurisdictions compatible and to provide equal protection for citizens across Australia. It will also allow lawyers to represent throughout the country, rather than being confined to the state in which they are admitted. Questions must however be raised as to whether the uniform code will stifle progressive legal experimentation and flexibility.

SENIOR POLICE POSITIONS

Justice Action calls on the Police Minister, Mr. Whelan, to publicly name the persons he intends to appoint to senior operational positions, following the Wood royal commission's interim report. It is argued that having regard to the extent of corruption and in order to prevent a further injection of corrupt elements into the force, the public must be entitled to make detailed submissions on those appointments which the police Board must then consider.

BLOOD BORNE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES (BBCD's)

The Minister for Corrective Services has announced a trial of condoms in three NSW prisons. Condoms will be available in non-cash vending machines, and sanitary disposal units will be installed in the wings. Prison staff will have nothing to do with distribution or disposal.

Assuming the trial succeeds, the biggest obstacle to prevention of the spread of BBCD's in prison is the lack of a needle exchange program. With the rate of Hepatitis C infection in prison at 160 times, and AIDS up to 40 times the level of the general community, it is vital that such a program be implemented as a matter of urgency.

CIRCULATION OF JUSTICE ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE IN PRISONS

After some heated correspondence between his office and Justice Action, the Minister for Corrective Services, Mr. Bob Debus, has agreed to facilitate circulation of Justice Actionıs notice and questionnaire regarding police fabrication and wrongful convictions in NSW prisons. The Minister has also contacted relevant legal and intellectual disability agencies with a view to improving access for disadvantaged groups of prisoners.

ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY

There were 15 Aboriginal deaths in custody last year, a 50% increase on the previous record in 1994. 1996 is looking no better: the national total is already four. The National death in custody total is now 90 since May, 1989

The death by hanging of Sean Johnson at the John Oxley Memorial Hospital on the 12th of January, 1996, has been accepted by the Murri Communities of Queensland and the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee, as a death in custody. This brings the 1996 total for Queensland to two.

The death of Maurice Marsland by stabbing on 13th of February while in the yard at Goulburn, with his assailants unknown, is the second stabbing at Goulburn Gaol in a three month period.

This is a disastrous start to 1996 and again highlights the need for a positive Aboriginal input into the mainstream custodial system to properly implement the Royal Commission Recommendations.

POLICE POLICY RESEARCH UNIT

John Hatton will head a Police Policy Research unit being established at the University of NSW. With the aid of academics, practising police experts and the community, its agenda is to prepare research based submissions to the Police Royal Commission and the NSW government. The main purpose of the project is to make a practical and public contribution to the Commission's work of reforming the NSW Police Service. The research objectives of the Unit will be to examine issues of corruption, crime, police and security, arrest, detention and prosecution, civil liberties and multiculturalism.

STRIP SEARCHING IS SEXUAL ASSAULT

Justice Action calls on the NSW Attorney General to ban all routine strip searching by police and prison officers. Strip searching is a sexual assault by the State, performed frequently and at times systematically by police and prison officers. Strip searching often involves the use of force, including forcible removal of clothing and forcible leg spreading. Many strip searches in prisons force the naked victim to confront uniformed officers, carrying batons and holding dogs. There is no opportunity for a prisoner to challenge a strip search.

PRISON PROFITEERS

With Jeff Kennett's economic rationalism turning park land into private raceways and freeways into toll ways, the soon to be privatised prison system will become a complex of factories churning out cheaply made goods. These products are made for privately owned companies by a virtually wageless workforce (Rebel Worker Vol. 15 No.1 Jan. 1996).

POLICE COMPLAINTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Dr. Maurice Hayes, appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, met with Justice Action and representatives from the Human Rights Commission and Wood Royal Commission to discuss a review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland.

To top of page

THE MULAWA PROJECT

Justice Action is now launching into our fourth month at the Mulawa Women's Correctional Centre. With funding gratefully received from the Law Foundation, the scope of the Mulawa project is increasing.

Over the last few months, volunteer law students and solicitors have been going out to the jail on a regular basis. Visits take place twice a week, for about 2 hours per day, and volunteers usually participate on a weekly or fortnightly basis.

We assist prisoners with any legal problems they might have applications. If a volunteer does not know the answer to a question, or if legal advice is necessary, that person contacts, or refers the prisoner to an appropriate community legal centre, or specialized body. If more help is needed we contact one of the qualified solicitors or barristers on the scheme. To date, we have closed about 60 files, meaning that we have assisted with that number of questions and jobs requiring outside work of some sort. The subject matter of work generated by our Mulawa visits is varied, and help given has been in areas of sentence appeals, internal complaints, allegations of assault, warrant questions, bail applications, custody matters, housing, chasing up solicitors or court dates, probation, compensation, domestic violence, detinue advice, FOI, interpreters, and questions regarding overseas laws.

As in a typical client-lawyer relationship, all notes taken by the volunteer, whether legal or otherwise, are considered confidential. Apart from Justice Action staff, noone has access to these without the prisoner's consent. This is a vital part of our project as it facilitates trusting relationships between volunteers and prisoners.

We have been the first point of reference for many women. Sometimes it is easier to talk to students than professionals, even about more personal issues, or prison conditions. We regard our non-legal chats with prisoners to be of equal importance as our legal conversations. Often they help build up the trust necessary for a legal conversation. Also, they act to educate us, and thus the public, in the daily activities within prison, which goes some way towards breaking down boundaries between 'us' and 'them'.

Education of the wider community has also been facilitated by the second strand of the Mulawa project. Talks have been held at the prison by various community groups, including Redfern Legal Centre, Children of Prisoners, The Welfare Rights Centre, Macquarie Legal Centre, The Women's Legal Resources Centre and Legal Aid. These were on subjects chosen by the women themselves, and were an effective way of getting 'outsiders' in to see the jail. The response from these community groups was overwhelming. Many had never been inside a jail before, and everyone welcomed the opportunity to speak to the prisoners face to face.

The ultimate aim of the Mulawa Project is to help the women help themselves, so that they are able to undertake research and preliminary case preparation. The Education officers have arranged for people from Butterworths to explain the CD Rom research system that exists in the library at Mulawa, and the newly appointed, law librarian is available where women are interested in doing legal research.

To facilitate further self-help, Justice Action is currently designing a short series of Plain English pamphlets to follow on from the community centres' talks. These will be funded by the Law Foundation. To date issues on visiting rights, sentencing and warrants are being considered.

Kathy McFarlane

To top of page

Don't Rest on Your Lauers

Criminal process corruption. In the Wood Commission's interim report it is defined as "the fabrication of incriminating evidence and perjury...an exercise of naked power and a cynical disregard for the rights of the individual."

One thing is certain: As a result of this form of corruption, people are sitting in their cells convicted for crimes they did not commit.

And yet the interim report has been released (5 February, 1996) and we are still left with general admissions of lies and perjury. No procedure has been canvassed to ensure full disclosure by the officers of the cases in which they have fabricated evidence; no procedure to investigate those cases and no procedure to review the convictions.

An urgent, interim measure was required and it should have been addressed in the Commissioner Wood's first report .While there is a strong public demand for an independent complaint authority, there is an urgent need for particular attention to the most serious of all complaints: organised and systematic perjury to secure convictions.

At least seven officers have admitted to the widespread fabrication and manufacture of evidence, implicating nine other colleagues. Verbals, scrum downs, load ups were 'commonplace', 'a matter of course.' At the crux of it, it is 'a big game...criminals tell lies and police tell lies.'

This isnít anything new. In 1991 Roger Rogersonís statement that verbals and load-ups "were part of police culture" wasnít enough to activate Ian Temby. ICAC wouldnít address the problem.

Following this failure, Justice Action in December 1994 wrote to the Wood Royal Commission requesting criminal process corruption be investigated. In that letter we stressed that:
Organised police fabrication and perjury should be seen as more serious that individual instances of police criminality, because it creates the climate in which such crimes can be repeatedly committed, concealed and covered up.

Unlike Temby, Justice Wood has brought the issue within the terms of his Commission. In August 1995, he stated:

manipulation of the criminal court is the ultimate and potentially most cynical, arrogant and dangerous face of corruption that can exist.

It sounded promising. It sounded like the words of someone who would give the problem the priority it deserves.

It is not the Commission's task to establish every instance of corruption, but rather make a realistic determination of its nature and extent. Surely, however, it is not outside its task to recommend a procedure whereby officers discredited to date are interviewed at length by a separate body to ensure full disclosure of the cases in which they and any other officers have fabricated evidence.

Why didn't the Commissioner make any such recommendation in the interim report? There are a few possible answers.

First, is that he just got his priorities all wrong. He failed to see the urgent nature of the problem.

Second, he decided to throw it in the too hard basket. There is little doubt that this is one of the most difficult aspects of corruption to address: reversing past injustices as opposed to future restructuring of accountability mechanisms. The police have organised perjury for many years to wrongly jail people. Such convictions are notoriously difficult to overturn.

The other, perhaps more probable answer, is that the Commissioner fears treading on the toes of the Attorney General.

Shaw's response has been that applications can basically be dealt with by referring them to the Crown Solicitors' Office for consideration. He will also look into cases forwarded to him by the Commissioner. As there is no procedure for ensuring full disclosure by officers of the specific cases in which evidence was fabricated, that number is minimal.

And there is no doubt the Commission is turning submissions away. The standard response to individuals claiming police fabricated evidence in their cases goes something like this: "I am sure you will understand we must devote our time and resources to matters which are likely to be productive."

The lid is being firmly held down. Widespread fabrication has been admitted and the admissions, more often than not, have been of a general nature. It is the Attorney General's responsibility to interview the officers and actively seeks out the name of the cases in which evidence was fabricated, investigate those cases, and ensure the convictions are reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Perhaps Commissioner Wood felt disinclined to show up the Attorney Generalís appalling failure to implement any of the above measures. It is precisely because of that failure that the Commissioner's recommendations on this subject were needed.

Will criminal process corruption be given sufficient focus in the Commission's second innings? In the Interim Report, Wood said that evidence yet to be called suggests this form of corruption is not confined to Kings Cross and the Joint Task Force. So we can predict some further general admissions from other areas. Where will that leave the wrongfully convicted? Nowhere they want to be unless Wood makes the appropriate recommendations or the Attorney-General bucks up the courage to do it all by himself.

Justice Action and the Council for Civil Liberties have called on both the government and the Commission to set up a Criminal Cases Review Authority, similar to that established in the UK, to examine in detail the convictions secured through the evidence of police who now admit to perjury. In light of the endemic nature of this problem, there is little doubt such an authority should remain a permanent and integral part of our legal system.

Justice Action Staff

To top of page

Top End Prison Blues

Recent figures released by the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services indicate that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are more likely to be imprisoned for less serious offences. Indeed, 87.7% of offences designated as 'Less Serious Offenders" were committed by Aboriginals.

Questions must be asked as to the causes for this outrageous over representation. A relatively high tendency to commit less serious crimes is a possible explanation. However a preliminary comparison between imprisonment statistics and charge statistics for specific minor offence categories indicates that this tendency is not the predominant explanation. In fact, evidence suggests that the proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people charged for minor offences is almost 1:1. How does it then occur that the Aboriginal imprisonment rate is up to 8 or 9 times the non-Aboriginal rate? A glance at the statistics gives some indication.

The Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service collected arrest statistics for driving offences, including DUI etc. The service found that 1278 people charged with such offences between June 1993 and January 1994, of whom 688 (53.8) were Aboriginal. Of the 590 (46.1%) non-Aboriginal people charged, 66 (11%) were sentenced to periods of imprisonment. Of the 688 Aboriginal people charged 304 (44%) were sentenced to imprisonment. Thus 82% of the total 370 people imprisoned were Aboriginal

A similar pattern was to exist in the assault category.

Clearly these figures are calling out for attention and have serious policy implications. Policies with respect to access to legal advice and representation, funding of the Aboriginal legal services in the Territory, and conscientious eradication of institutionalised racism and intolerance. But most importantly, as highlighted by Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations, diversionary options must be available to Aboriginal people as an alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders.

Further, the issue of a blind rush to build inappropriate prison capacity adds insult to injury. If there is to be large numbers of Aboriginal prisoners serving time for less serious offences, there is a need for appropriate low security capacity. But the Northern Territory Government recently closed Gunn Point prison farm near Darwin, with no concrete plans for the establishment of a replacement open facility. In the wake of promises of desert employment, a huge new prison (500-600 beds) is almost complete in the Alice. Top End people with a family member inside are justifiably uneasy about the prospect of a long, hot trip to the Alice and each time they go for a visit. Yet another a flagrant disregard of Aboriginal perspectives.

Surely the time has come for the Northern Territory to take stock of the Aboriginal situation and get in line with the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in Custody.

To top of page

The Police Royal Commission's Interim Report

Most analyses of police corruption focus on a perceived need to protect the institution of the police and meet its needs, at the expense of protecting those abused by police power. Yet this very bias helps explain why police corruption is as "entrenched and systemic" as Justice James Wood now acknowledges.

Analysts are now talking of police restructuring, management regimes and police training. Wood rightly rejects the complacent view of the Police Association that corruption will always exist, but at the other end of this spectrum Premier Carr claims he will deliver to the public "a Police Service in which they can have absolute faith". However 'absolute faith' in anything, let alone a police force, is for the terminally naive or the overly religious.

A series of weak police excuses have emerged for the fiasco the Royal Commission has begun to expose. Ex-Commisioner Tony Lauer, denying the extent of corruption to the bitter end, weakly claimed to Wood that his submission was not an exercise in "damage control". Acting Commissioner Neil Taylor, having also claimed there was little police corruption, now simply says "my views were incorrect". And despite Wood's finding that "on a prima facie basis, widespread corruption, criminal conduct ... and perjury existed within the NSW police force", former head of Internal Affairs, Jeff Jarrat, could only offer the lame excuse that police corruption was "like a relationship when one partner is cheating; the other is often the last to know."

In fact all the hierarchy knew. Many were involved, many turned a blind eye, and those who made it to the top were all experts in damage control. Experts with a big budget. Tony Lauer, along with Assistant Commissioners Dennis Gilligan and Bruce Gibson, worked closely with the squads which verballed and loaded up suspects. They, and all senior police involved in internal affairs, were thoroughly familiar with police perjury and cover-ups. As spokesperson for the Police Association in 1981 Lauer attacked as "anarchist elements" those who criticised Roger Rogerson, when he shot Warren Lanfranchi dead in a Chippendale back lane. Lauer was accused by other police of planting heroin on suspect Frank Hakim, but was cleared by ICAC boss Ian Temby, in 1989. Lauer was not unfamiliar with allegations of criminal process corruption.

The failure of ICAC under Temby, which Framed has detailed in past issues, is now widely accepted. Wood correctly calls Temby's feeble pretence to deal with police corruption as "an opportunity lost"; Temby's 1994 plea to leave police to themselves was "unfortunate". Temby aligned ICAC so closely with the police hierarchy that the anti-corruption body publicised and distributed the police policy on informers. Little wonder that Lauer tried to employ Temby as the police barrister, when the Wood Royal Commission began. Little wonder, too, that a public outcry blocked Temby's lucrative opportunity.

The reasons for the failure of ICAC are worth reconsidering, when we look at the newly proposed Police Corruption Commission. Will it do any better? Perhaps. ICAC under Temby was concerned to establish close working relationships with law enforcement bodies, to influence their training, education and management practices. Temby identified with the goals of the police, and attempted to build public confidence in police effectiveness. For these reasons he gave senior police soft treatment and avoided forms of corruption (such as organised perjury) which strengthened the police hand. A higher than normal standard of proof in the Hakim case meant Tony Lauer would not face charges of perjury and fabrication. Inspector Aarne Tees, when caught out lying to ICAC, was excused. Temby refused to deal with Rogerson' 1991 admissions of widespread fabrication.

Things have now changed. While Temby called fabrication to secure convictions the pursuit of "noble ends by wrongful means", the Police Board in its submission to Wood rejected any linking of the term "noble" with police perjury and fabrication. After the revelations of the Royal Commission, both the Police Service and the Police Board accept the need for an external body to investigate serious corruption. They also both offer tentative support for drug law reform. But there is a pressing insistence to allow police to move their new management tools, such as a 'Professional Standards Program', into centre stage. This is to 'rebuild confidence' in the force, where the Royal Commission had destroyed it. But this is the heart of the problem: no strategy which is focussed on building confidence in the police can at the same time unearth substantial and destabilising corruption and so trigger change. A 'hit and run' Royal Commission may do so, but what about a permanent complaints body, such as ICAC or the PCC, concerned for its place in the bureaucracy?

Former barrister and judge Jim Staples proposes "demilitarisation, democratisation and decentralisation" of the police. Criminologist Russell Hogg speaks of the need for changes in police structure, training and management. But this focus on police needs means that the political confidence-building process -which no-one dared upset in the past, and which strengthened the police culture of cover-ups and lies -resumes centre stage. 'Retooling' the police force has its dangers. The worst example to follow would be the response to the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report, where several hundred million dollars have been spent on police and prison officer training and education, suicide proof cells and so on, yet Aboriginal imprisonment and deaths have risen.

Justice Action has suggested that addressing police corruption requires something more. There must be special structures outside the police to protect the vulnerable from the worst abuses of police power. In addition, ongoing exposure of police abuses is an essential and necessary part of a democratic society. The destabilisation caused by such exposures is a healthy thing, and must not be avoided, as it is the motive force for further reform. We wrote to the Royal Commission late last year, proposing:

While acknowledging these problems Wood has not suggested measures to deal with them, in his interim report. This might be seen as a reflection of Wood's priorities, or it may be that the Royal Commission is in a jurisdictional dispute with the Attorney General, who has so far taken no real initiative on the matter. Whatever the case, the responsibility for implementing such proposals lies with the government. Watch to see if as much political energy is spent on dealing with police perjury and the victims of miscarriages of justice, as on 'rebuilding confidence' in the police.

Tim Anderson

To top of page

CONVICTIONS REVIEW REGISTER

In excess of one hundred complaints of police fabrication, manufacture and suppression of evidence have been brought to the attention of Justice Action.

Given that the number of cases is growing daily, the existing procedure has been altered to ensure that an efficient and systematicv process is in place. A confidential computer register has been established at Justice Action and each case will be classified according to its progress.

Upon receiving a complaint, a questionnaire is forwarded by us to the complainant requesting details of the convictions and allegations of police misconduct. Where possible, we ask that the full identity, rank and unit of the corrupt officers be provided, together with an account of their involvement in the case.

We have forwarded several completed questionnaires to the Wood Royal Commission. Receipt has been acknowledged, but we have not as yet been advised as to whether any of the allegations are being investigated.

Completed questionnaires are also being forwardedto the Attorney-Generalís office and, where appropriate, to the Legal Aid Commission.

While the procedure the Attorney-General has in place to deal with applications is inadequate, (see article page 1), Mr Shaw has stated that the more applications he receives, the more seriously he will consider setting up an independent review authority.

In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald dated February 5, he called on Justice Action to forward applications to his office to enable a "proper investigation." As Herald letters are limited to 200 words, the Attorney-General musnít have had enough space left to define those terms.

To top of page

CRIME AND CAPITALISM IN THE PRISON BUSINESS

In the United States of America (USA) the growing private prison industryóWall Street brokerage firms now underwrite prison construction with private tax-exempt bondsóhas ensured that crime really does pay. The custodians of the US penal system have abandoned the idea of rehabilitating prisoners. Comparable to slaves in an earlier period, prisoners have become a very desirable commodity: they are traded across State borders or warehoused in affluent white middle class suburbs where crime is converted into good paying jobs. In California where prison guards earn $45,000 their union contributed $425,000 to Governor Pete Wilson's gubernatorial campaign; the largest single contribution ever reported by a candidate for governor, but a small investment for increased job security.

Such is the rush to exploit prisoners, not only have US icon corporation such as General Electric and American Express divested into prison construction to boost stockholder profits, but corporations and companies are taking advantage of the semi-factory, slave-like work forces that have been instituted behind the prison walls to manufacture or process products as varied as modular homes, designer jeans, electronic cables, processed hot dogs and vehicle logos. Prisoners, paid minimum wages only where labour unions have been able to intervene, net approximately $1 an hour after deductions.

The private prisons are attractive to states because budgets have been depleted by mandatory sentencing guidelines which have significantly increase prison populations, in a manner similar to NSW's 'Truth in Sentencing' legislation. (The two largest US private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, now operate in Australia.) In some states draconian measures have been employed to defray the cost of incarceration including charging prisoners for health care and in some cases rent. If inmates are unable to pay collection agencies are hired to pursue payment. There has also been a boom in companies vending products and services to the "prison industry", a market growing at 8.5% annually.

If the alienated and disenfranchised are now valued only for their eventual imprisonment, then this impacts disproportionately on African Americans and other minorities. The so-called "War on Drugs" conviction figuresóthe Department of Health and Human Services estimates that there are 2.4 million (64.4%) White crack users compared to 1 million (26.6%) Blacks yet 1992 Sentencing Commission figures show that 91.3% of those sentenced for crack offences were Black and 3% White - reveal starkly that African Americans are the flesh that maintains this profitable "prison industry".

By profiting from the misery of others, the privileged in society are accomplices to social disorder and complicit in creating a criminal class.

Z Magazine, October 1995

To top of page

A lot of fine words have accompanied the interim report of the Police Royal Commission, as have accompanied all the other royal commissions into police and criminal activities in NSW. Are we to believe that it's going to be different this time because a display of technical wizardry has exposed a few corrupt police behaving as police have since their forbears landed their convict charges at Sydney Cove? A quick glance to the North indicates that the answer is no. While Garry Crook, former Principal Counsel assisting the Fitzgerald inquiry, plies his trade in fresh fields, and the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission chases shadows, 'the Joke' has been re-established This is because the Goss government, pandering to conservative voters, has failed to remove the avenues for corruption by not implementing significant law reforms in the areas of prostitution and drugs.

During the commission's Kings Cross session, Wood indicated that a bold initiative in the area of drugs was required. Most journalists interpreted his comments to mean that he felt prohibition had failed, and that drug law reform was essential to reduce police corruption. (Unsurprisingly, the Federal Police Association's responded to Wood's comments by calling for greater resources to win the 'drug war'.) Yet, there is little in the interim report that addresses this crucial issue. What Wood will say in his final report can't be known but, given the overwhelming evidence before the commission, he has failed the people of NSW by not drawing the obvious conclusions and recommending, in the strongest terms, that the government act, and act immediately, to end the ridiculous situation that prohibition has created.

The political hypocrisy of the drug war is no better evidenced than in the Lauer-like response of Police Minister Whelan who claimed "not to know" that police turned a blind eye to minor marijuana offenses (following comments to that affect by a NSW Police Association spokesperson). While some police do, in fact, ignore minor transgressions of the drug laws‹a discretion they do not have under the criminal law‹people are still being arrested and convicted, and in some cases jailed, for such offenses. It is intolerable that police can pick and choose who they wish to arrest; it is the corruption Wood has exposed except no money changes hands.

Our political masters cannot have an each way bet. Pathetic excuses such as: we'll ensure that nobody goes to jail or the law isn't being used (the Tasmanian Premier's excuse for increasing the penalty for gay sex), can no longer justify the continuation of unpopular and unworkable laws. Politicians cannot expect squeaky clean police forces if their members have to enforce unjust laws; laws that those very politicians lack the intestinal fortitude to change, to bring an end to prohibition, and treat drug use in the community as a health and education issue.

In December last year, the Attorney General admitted that "the present approach to the drug issue has failed." The Wood commission had "indicated that our present policies have been unable to resolve the problems of drug abuse, and profiting and corruption from the illicit sale of drugs" he said. More recently, the former head of the Goulburn Police Academy, David Bradley, called for changes to laws that a large numbers of people were ignoring as a first step toward the rehabilitation of the police. Wran's failure to implement drug and prostitution law reform in the 1980's perpetuated the corruption that Wood has exposed; corruption that has made NSW finest, and criminal justice, a laughing stock. Yet, nothing is proposed, nothing is being done. Yes, Premier, this is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity; an opportunity to remove major avenues for corruption, an opportunity to implement Labor Party policy and an opportunity to consign to history these unjust and unjustifiable laws.

UPDATE ON DRUG LAW REFORM

A proposal for a legalised shooting rooms in Kings Cross is being considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Police. Other proposals to the Committee include decriminalisation of small quantities of cannabis and legalisation of possession and personal use of all drugs.

The Heroin Pilot Task Force has made its report to the ACT Legislative Assembly, recommending that Pilot 1 of the of the proposed clinical trial should proceed. The Minister for Justice, Duncan Kerr, and the Attorney General, Mr Lavarche, both had representatives on the Committee, while the Minister for Health, Carmen Lawrence declined to appoint a representative. Twenty nine out of thirty Committee members supported the trial. The Australian Federal Police Association did not. The Committee noted in its executive summary: 1. The misuse of heroin imposes significant social, economic and health costs on the Australian community; 2. Methadone, a widely used maintenance treatment option, has limited effectiveness; 3. the proposed trial involves evaluating the effects of providing carefully controlled doses of heroin in a clinical setting to a limited number of heroin dependent users; 4. the potential benefits of the trial outweigh the potential hazards and the balance of public opinion supports the trial

DRUG LAW REFORM = MORE USERS = MORE PROBLEMS?
Addressing the prohibitionists' principle points

Invariably the principle objection whenever reform of the drug laws is advocated is that relaxing the restrictions will make the present drug problem far worse. "We already have enough problems with legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, why do you want to put more drugs on the market" runs the refrain. "We must maintain the hardline stance against drugs".

As this argument has the appeal of superficial logic it must be taken seriously. It is grounded in the fear engendered in the long-standing 'war on drugs' rhetoric. As long as it represents the mainstream view, the political will to seriously consider drug law reform will not be found - the issue is simply too hot.

The best way to address this argument is to examine the two equations, the two '=' symbols in the title of this article.

Drug law reform = more users

This statement is pure conjecture but so is any simple statement to the contrary. There are no precise figures as to how many people currently use illegal drugs, much less how many would use them if they were more easily available.

There can be no doubt however, that drug use is widespread despite the present policies of prohibition. After more than 70 years of prohibition, drugs re readily obtainable and are regularly used by millions of Australians. It is unlikely that there are millions more waiting for drug law reform so that they can rush out and get stoned.

The straw man of uncontrolled legalisation must also be refuted. What is usually proposed is more accurately referred to as regulated supply - that the government would no longer surrender control to the black market. It is likely that by taking the profits out of the black market, that this market will shrink. It may be that some of the rebellious thrill of taking drugs would also be sapped.

Regulated supply would enable government to more accurately and effectively implement policies to discourage consumption of drugs as is currently done with tobacco. Official disapproval may be expressed in better ways than through heavy handed use of the criminal law. These efforts could be funded by taxes on the drugs themselves or savings made by no longer trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

There has also been no detectable increase in cannabis use in the dozen jurisdictions around the world that have liberalised policies on cannabis.

More drug use = more problems

It is of course possible that under a scheme of controlled availability more people would choose to use drugs. The crucial point to make here is that most of the serious problems are a result of prohibition rather than drug use per se. It is essential that a practical approach of minimizing harm is taken rather than the unrealistic approach of eradicating drug use completely.

Of course the non medical use of drugs is never healthy. However the way drugs are used, the selection of drugs, the quality of drugs, and their price are all adversely affected by policies of prohibition. Other problems such as crime and police corruption can also be attributed to the current regime.

Prohibition makes it difficult to encourage safer drug use: the use of bongs, smoking drugs rather than injecting them etc. In Asia prohibition drove out opium smoking and replaced it with heroin injecting. Users may be forced into lifestyles where diet and hygiene are neglected. Deaths from heroin are usually caused by depressed breathing because the street strength is not known.

There is also evidence to suggest that prohibition increases the use of more dangerous drugs. New dealers try and gain a niche by selling new drugs. Higher concentrations mean that profit margins are higher and that the drugs are easier to conceal.

A scheme of regulated supply would retain the restrictions that currently apply to legal drugs with respect to issues such as driving under the influence, advertising, sale to minors etc. This means that an adult's right to choose their own lifestyle would be respected subject to considerations of public health rather than unrealistic fantasies of a drug-free society.

MICHAEL EASTON
Reprinted with the authority of the Lawyers Reform Association

To top of page