Opinion

Unaccountable coppers

He's 17 and he's at home today at Aberglasslyn with a steel plate in his jaw and eating through a straw because it was shattered by an unprovoked king hit on the night of last Friday week. His assailant, who's also 17, is going about his day free of any ramifications since a Newcastle police decision to simply caution him. Police had open to them under the Young Offenders Act to issue a caution, call a conference at which the offender would hear the victim's story and agree to a program of rehabilitation, or lay an assault charge to be heard by a children's court magistrate.

As I detail in my column in The Herald today, among the issues police are required to consider in choosing to caution, conference or charge are the seriousness of the offence, the degree of violence and the harm to the victim. Somehow, despite the seriousness of the assault, the fact that was unprovoked and launched from behind, that a king hit is the most extreme violence involving fists and sometimes causes death, and that the victim has been seriously injured, police chose the least serious of their options under the act, a caution.

Under the act it was open to the police, too, to charge the 17-year-old simply if they'd been of the opinion that it was "not in the interests of justice" to deal with the matter by cautioning or conferencing.

In the Hunter we've had quite a few of these mysterious let-offs, among them a conferencing for a 17-year-old who punched a passing 12-year-old to the ground then knocked him unconscious with a kick to the face, a conferencing for two 16-year-olds who set alight six cars, a house, a boat and a caravan at wallsend, a conferencing for three 17-year-olds who burnt down a $1.8million bowling club.

Unlike the magistrate these cowards and aspiring criminals should have fronted, the police who choose the caution or conference are not accountable to a public or even the victims. They make no explanations to the public.

The Newcastle police who make these decisions seem to have a strangely generous interpretation of the Young Offenders Act. Police often talk of individuals being responsible for their own actions, but their willingness to issue a slap on the wrist for serious crime by 17-year-olds makes this a nonsense. Should victims and the public have a say in the decision to warn, caution, conference or charge serious so-called juvenile offenders?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 18/12/2009 4:44:00 PM | Comments (79)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Now the downside of the ridiculous Young Offenders Act is being exposed. 17 year old thugs can assault and hurt as much as a adult. Even younger offenders can commit crime as easily if not easier and more often than any adult because of this Act. . Perhaps a lot of the University trained Police of today are too Politically Correct or just don't know how or are too lazy to seek justice for victims. It is for this very reason that young persons with no restraints or accountability will continue to act in this manner until this whole idea and approach to Policing is overturned and turfed out despite what their spin doctors will tell you.

Posted by MizJasper, 21/12/2009 9:18:29 AM, on The Herald

I say take the law into your own hands and sue these thugs in the civil court. Having a $50,000 judgement against them with a provision to dock their pay or (more likely) their centerlink payments for the next 20 years might make them wake up and regret their actions. As for the caution, if you're old enough to drive a car, you're old enough to be charged as an adult. Its just the adult slap on the wrist is a fraction harder.

Posted by G, 21/12/2009 9:20:59 AM, on The Herald

Jeff, I think this decision stinks. It was a coward attack and the kid got his jaw shatttered. Surely this should have been taken into account. What if the kid died? Whould he still have gotten a caution? There is a mighty fine line between smashing a jaw and killing someone from a king hit. I can see a little where the police are coming from on this one though, 17 year old, 1st offence, kid may have been remorceful etc etc, the assailant may not need a criminal conviction over his head, he may have learnt his lesson. But the caution, no matter the variables or remorcefullness of the kid is way too leanient. If the police didn't want to give the kid a conviction, a confrence with the victim should have been a must, so he knows the damage a cowardly king hit does cause. I believe, even under the Young Offenders Act, for a caution to be given, they must at least face their victim. Without facing their victim, the have no idea the real result of their crime.

Posted by Nafe, 21/12/2009 9:22:57 AM, on The Herald

[Fisrtly : let's acknowledge that 99.99% of Police officers do a top job, in trying circumstances with little thanks or recognition.] Surely there should be a mechanism whereby the victim and the public can challenge the decision of the officer on the spot. Where a kid is seriously injured, as in this case, giving the offender a caution is simply ludicrous, and makes a mockery of the great work the police usually do. Sure, it means more work, more admin, more paperwork. But it's the right thing to do.

Posted by Abundance, 21/12/2009 9:24:43 AM, on The Herald

It beggers belief that the incidents mentioned in this blog did not deserve criminal charges being laid. A pannel made up of magistrates and victims of crime should be the ones that have the say if cautioning or conferencing is appropriate, not the police.

Posted by thinkitthrough, 21/12/2009 9:26:43 AM, on The Herald

And people wonder why violence in Newy is out of control. I believe, that the reduced service times for alcohol in Newcastle will not do one iota to reduce crime or anti-social behaviour - assaults might be 'down in the CBD between 1am & 4am, but what about assaults before midnight? what about those areas not in the CBD? Parties in the suburbs are now more common because people don't go into the CBD, and I'd bet that violence in the suburbs do not get recorded in the CBD statsitics, nor as related to alcohol...how can a system of punishing the law abiding ever work when those who are actually caught perpetrating the most violent and cowardly of these crimes don't get anything more than a caution?? Why can I, as a 30 something, who has never had so much as a parking ticket, not allowed to enter a licenced, security controlled premesis after midnight, but a 17 year old thug who tried to kill (or, at the least, seriously harm) someone allowed to walk freely around at 2am looking for another fight. Tony Brown et al, focus on the problems, not those law abiding citizens that could be your best supporters if you could focus on the problem and not lump all youths together as idiots.

Posted by King Idiot, 21/12/2009 9:31:22 AM, on The Herald

I still don't like this 'king-hit' term as it glamourises a cowardly lowlife violent assault, and there is nothing kingly about the person who does it.

Posted by Jessica, 21/12/2009 9:33:40 AM, on The Herald

Jeff, Police are the most accountable section of any Government run or financied organisation. ICAC, Onbudsman, Police integrity Commission, Royal Commissions including Deaths in Custody just to name a few. Add to this scrutiny in all courts, solicitors who represent grubs, all whingers who have had a ticket, media and list goes on. Before that hero was given a caution the Officer would have run it by his/her supervisor, the youth liason Officer and a Duty Officer. It does not make it right but they are accountable.

Posted by Buel, 21/12/2009 9:34:17 AM, on The Herald

They're not accountable to the public, as is a magistrate in a court. They are accountable to superiors and some others but this is a long way short of public accountability.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 21/12/2009 10:20:32 AM

Jeff, the legal system is not about revenge. It's about the issuing and collection of fines. What makes this particular case outrageous is that the parents or the attacker weren't issued with a fine.

Posted by Direct, 21/12/2009 9:40:22 AM, on The Herald

Jeff - I have read the Young Offenders Act on the police website. Haven't had that good a laugh since a good Seinfeld episode. Anyone who hasn't seen it should have a look - especially the 'Conferencing' stage. The offender has to AGREE and CONSIDER (with his family) what (IF ANYTHING) happens to them as a result of their crimes. It is complete bull****. If you are a victim of crime in NSW today, give up any chance of any justice being done. Get Out Of Jail Free cards are handed out like lollies.

Posted by Jaded, 21/12/2009 9:54:42 AM, on The Herald