Aboriginal Law Bulletin; Hiskey, Garry --- "SA Report on Crime Statistics (and Commentary by Garry Hiskey)" [1982] AboriginalLawB 53; (1982) 1(5) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Aboriginal Law Bulletin

A recent report of the SA Office of Crime Statistics focuses attention on the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people charged with minor offences. The report suggests that Aboriginal defendants are more likely than other individuals appearing on minor offences to receive gaol sentences. They are less likely to have been bailed prior to their court appearances.

The section of the report dealing with Aboriginal defendants (pp.20-21) is set out below. A commentary follows. The report is: SA Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney-General's Department, Statistics from Criminal Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, South Australia, 1 January 1981-30 June 1981, Series A, No. 1, April 1982.

One important advantage of court statistics is the insight they offer into interaction between the criminal juptice system and specific minority groups, such as Aboriginal people. During the first six months of 1981, a pattern which has emerged from previous lower court publications in South Australia and other states was confirmed: although Aboriginal defendants comprise a significant proportion of those appearing (almost 14 per cent), the vast majority are charged with relatively minor matters. For some offences, such as shop theft (less than 2 per cent Aboriginal people), or drug-related crimes (just 1 per cent), the numbers appearing are minimal. However, more than one in three defendants on charges such as drunkenness, vagrancy, offensive behaviour, offensive language, and other offences against liquor laws was an Aboriginal. Most recent population estimates indicate that Aboriginal people comprise less than 1 per cent of South Australia's population - thus members of this ethnic minority are many times more likely to be arrested for minor offences than the rest of the population. People outside the Adelaide metropolitan area seemed particularly vulnerable. More than 58 per cent of all defendants appearing on drunkenness, vagrancy, offensive behaviour and liquor-related charges in courts outside the Adelaide metropolitan area were Aboriginals, although this racial group constitutes less than 2 per cent of the rural population.

The 1981 figures also showed that likelihood of receiving bail or being imprisoned for minor offences also varied greatly for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal defendants. Table 1 contains the relevant figures.

Whatever their racial background, defendants in non-metropolitan courts were far more likely to be remanded in custody on minor charges than their counterparts in Adelaide. This may reflect a relative scarcity in country towns of facilities - other than gaol - for handling `public nuisance' offenders. Regardless of the geographical region, however, Aboriginal defendants were less likely to have received bail, and the proportion remanded in custody in country courts is particularly high. Similarly, although relatively few defendants were gaoled for minor offences such as drunkenness and vagrancy, Table 2 shows that Aboriginal defendants had two to three times the chance of receiving this penalty.

Table 1 Race and bail status at final appearance of defendants on drunkenness, vagrancy etc. charges
	Adelaide				Rest of State
Bail Status	Aboriginal		Other		Aboriginal		Other		Total
No.	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
On Bail	285	76.0	1271	88.2	157	21.0	377	72.2	2090	67.8
In Custody	90	24.0	170	11.8	588	79.0	145	27.8	993	32.2
Total	375	100.0	1441	100.0	745	100.0	522	100.0	3083	100.0

Table 2 Race and penalty imposed: drunkenness, vagrancy and other minor offences
	Adelaide				Rest of State
Sentence	Aboriginal		Other		Aboriginal		Other		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Gaol	7	2.1	7	0.6	54	7.5	15	3.2	83	3.1
Fine	313	93.4	973	87.4	652	90.3	435	93.1	2373	90.0
Other	15	4.5	133	11.9	16	2.2	17	3.6	181	6.9
Total	335	100.0	1113	100.0	722	100.0	467	100.0	2637	100.0

Commentary

The Office of Crime Statistics' figures again demonstrate the discrepancies between the position of members of the Aboriginal community and members of the community at large. Aboriginal people comprise less than 1 per cent of South Australia's population. They represent 14 per cent or thereabouts of all persons appearing in courts of summary jurisdiction. Outside the Adelaide metropolitan area more than 58 per cent of all defendants appearing on drunkenness, vagrancy, offensive behaviour and liquor related charges are Aboriginal people.

Differences concerning bail

The figures with respect to offences of drunkenness, vagrancy and similar minor offences indicate a substantial difference in terms of admission to bail.

In the Adelaide metropolitan area 24 per cent of Aboriginal people do not obtain bail on these charges. This compares with 11.8 per cent of all other categories of defendants. Outside the Adelaide metropolitan area the position is substantially worse. There, 79 per cent of Aboriginal people appearing in these courts were refused bail compared with 27.8 per cent of the other categories of defendants who appeared.

The figures are based upon the bail status of the defendant upon the occasion of his last appearance in court. Usually, offences of this sort are dealt with upon their first appearance in court. Adjournments or remands for offences of this sort would be relatively rare. The figures are therefore unlikely to represent distinctions being drawn by the courts.

The offences with which we are concerned are offences under the Police Offences Act (SA). Under section 78 of that Act, a person arrested without a warrant must be forthwith delivered to the officer in charge of the nearest police station. Section 78 (2) authorises police bail. Having been delivered into the custody of the officer in charge of the police station ‘that person may, if he deems it prudent take bail by recognizance, with or without sureties, as he thinks fit, without any fear or reward, from that person . . .’

If that officer does not see fit to grant bail, section 80 of the Act comes into effect. That section requires that the arresting officer inform the arrested person that he is entitled to make an application for bail to a justice and upon request of the arrested person the officer is required to bring the arrested person, as soon as practicable, before a justice, in order that an application for bail may be made. This applies only if police bail is not initially granted.

The published figures demonstrate a substantial discrepancy. In the Adelaide metropolitan region twice the percentage of Aborigines are refused bail compared with their white counterparts. Outside of the Adelaide metropolitan area the discrepancy is 80 per cent compared with 30 per cent. What can be the reasons for this discrepancy? Why the discrepancy not only between black and white but between city and country? Unfortunately, the figures do not explain why these discrepancies might arise. The matters are being referred by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement for discussion by the SA Police/Aboriginal Liaison Committee. There appear to be at least three broad areas for investigation.

Areas for investigation

The first possibility is that officers in charge of police stations deem it less prudent to admit Aborigines to bail than to admit others to bail. If so, that might relate to a belief on the part of such persons that Aborigines who are arrested are less likely to appear, if admitted to bail, than others. It would be of interest to know whether there is any foundation in fact for such a belief. If there be no foundation in fact then Aborigines are the subject of arbitrary judgment not based on fact and probably based upon misconceptions to do with the colour of their skin.

The second possibility is that Aborigines are less aware of their rights . than their white counterparts. The arresting officer is only required to bring the arrested person before a justice, if the arrested person so requests. Perhaps Aboriginal people do not make a request as often as their white counterparts. Even if awareness of members of the Aboriginal community of their rights is equal to their white counterparts, perhaps they find it more difficult to assert that right.

There is a third possibility. Police have a discretion in relation to admission to police bail. In the exercise of that discretion matters which would be of relevance would include questions relating to whether or not the arrested person has a place of abode, a job, financial resources, the ability to get a cab or a ride home, the ability to telephone a relation or friend, and so on. My suspicion is that members of the Aboriginal community do not have those sorts of social circumstances to the same extent as do their white counterparts.

Economic and social status differences

If I am right, these statistics reflect the differences in the economic and social status of the Aboriginal community when contrasted with the rest of the community. The figures would then bear out the urgent need for further steps to be taken to improve the economic and social status of members of the Aboriginal community.

The discrepancies between the city and the country figures may be attributable to the fact that there is a greater discrepancy in the economic and social status of members of the community in the country compared with city dwellers. But there is also a discrepancy between members of the white community in the country who are refused bail (27.8 per cent) and their counterparts in the city (11.8 per cent). It may be due to factors such as the distances involved and the comparative difficulties for people in the country in taking advantage of police bail, compared with their city counterparts. The worrying possibility is that justices of the peace are less accessible to country people than to their city counterparts.

A positive result of the survey is the fact that the problem is brought out into the open as a consequence of the publication of figures of this sort. The Office of Crime Statistics is to be congratulated as is the State Government which has seen fit to make funding available to enable this work to be done.

The survey results again pose a challenge: how to resolve the problems which result in the Aboriginal community finding itself severely disadvantaged in a society which proclaims equality for all regardless of race.