AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Alternative Law Journal

Alternative Law Journals (AltLJ)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Alternative Law Journal >> 2001 >> [2001] AltLawJl 92

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Gardiner, Greg --- "The police and Indigenous juveniles in Victoria" [2001] AltLawJl 92; (2001) 26(5) Alternative Law Journal 248

The police and Indigenous juveniles in Victoria

Greg Gardiner[*]

Alleged offenders, arrest rates and over-representation for arrests in the 1990s.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the delivery of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCADIC) final report, with its 339 recommendations aimed at reducing Indigenous people’s contact with the criminal justice system. The implementation process that followed brought important changes to practices within that system, particularly in relation to police detentions. Nevertheless, one decade after the final report was handed down, one in five prisoners in Australia is Indigenous, one in five of all custodial deaths is of an Indigenous person, while Indigenous people represent just two in one hundred within the total population.[1] In the Northern Territory and Western Australia, mandatory sentencing regimes directly impinge on Indigenous people and their rights, contravene international treaty obligations,[2] and contradict key recommendations of the RCADIC.

However, such contradiction is not confined to northern and western jurisdictions. A study has been carried out by the Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies at Monash University which shows that the rate of arrest of Indigenous youths in Victoria is extremely high, fast approaching an average of one in five of Indigenous males under 17 years of age.[3] Indigenous juvenile offenders in Victoria are almost twice as likely to be arrested by police as to be cautioned — in comparison to non-Indigenous juvenile offenders — and their high arrest rates provide the springboard for the extraordinary rates of arrest experienced by Indigenous men in Victoria. This study investigates Indigenous people’s contact with the first line of the criminal justice system in Victoria, with a particular emphasis on Indigenous male juveniles. It provides key data and analysis of the processing of Indigenous alleged offenders by the Victoria Police in the 1990s.

Sources, definitions and methods

This analysis is based on the most recent Census data[4] and data obtained from the Victoria Police, which allows for temporal comparisons between Indigenous and non-Indigenous alleged offenders over a broad range of offence classes and categories, across different age groups and by gender.[5] The current study reviews the data obtained covering the period of 1993/94 to 1996/97, and focuses on three areas: Indigenous alleged offenders processed in each year;[6] arrest rates and over-representation ratios for 1993/94 and 1996/97; and methods of police processing.[7] All definitions follow those employed by the Victoria Police.[8]

The Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody

In 1991 the Royal Commission presented a comprehensive final report that included recommendations directed at criminal justice reform in all jurisdictions, and in relation to the social and historical contexts of Indigenous deaths in custody. The Commission’s work was aimed fundamentally at addressing the issue of the high levels of Aboriginal contact with the criminal justice system. The Commission found that Aboriginal people did not die at a significantly higher rate when incarcerated than other Australians.[9] High numbers of Aboriginal deaths were substantially the result of the over-representation of Indigenous people within Australia’s custodial facilities. Of the 99 deaths investigated by the RCADIC, six were Indigenous juveniles. The RCADIC found that in 43 of the cases the individual had been previously charged with an offence at or before the age of 15.[10]

The over-representation of Indigenous people in custody is directly related to the levels at which they are arrested, and the manner in which such arrests are processed. The Commission noted that it was the early construction of a criminal history that formed the basis for a high level of future imprisonment,[11] recognising the central role that high levels of contact between Indigenous youth and the criminal justice system play in future levels of adult over-representation. In addition to the general recommendations, which apply to Indigenous youth, the RCADIC made a series of recommendations specifically aimed at reducing the level of contact of Indigenous youth with the criminal justice system; in particular, in relation to policing and police powers of discretion in the processing of offenders.[12] As the following survey indicates, many of these recommendations are as relevant to the situation in Victoria today as they were back in 1991.

Indigenous alleged offenders: total

Between 1993/94 and 1996/97 the total number of Indigenous alleged offenders processed by the Victoria Police rose by 21.5% (rising from a total of 2905 in 1993/94 to a total of 3530 in 1996/97), with an average of 3361 processings a year. Over the same period, the total number of non-Indigenous alleged offenders processed by the Victoria Police increased by 13.1%. The total Indigenous population in Victoria at June 1996 stood at just 22,598. While all alleged offender totals include the processing of repeat offenders, this yearly average of 3361 represents an extraordinarily high number of Indigenous alleged offenders processed in relation to the size of the Indigenous community; a figure all the more extraordinary since it does not include arrests of Indigenous people for drunkenness, which averaged almost 1000 arrests a year over the period.

Indigenous alleged offenders: male juveniles

Through the 1990s, the number and proportion of Indigenous youth being processed by police as alleged offenders in Victoria has been a matter of great concern.[13] This study highlights the unacceptable levels of contact with the criminal justice system that have occurred involving Indigenous youth; levels of contact placing them potentially amongst the most targeted youth groups for policing in the western world.[14] The total number of Indigenous male juvenile alleged offenders processed from July 1993 to the end of June 1997 was 3503 — an average of 876 processings a year. The total Indigenous male juvenile population in 1996 was only 4837. Were these levels of contact to be replicated in the non-Indigenous male juvenile population, then the Victoria Police would be processing over 100,000 non-Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders every year![15]

The processing of male juveniles represents over one quarter of all processings of Indigenous people over the period. The only group by age or gender in the Indigenous community with a higher rate of contact with the Victoria Police is Indigenous men, who averaged over 1800 processings a year, and whose rate of arrest for each 1000 of population almost doubles that of Indigenous youth.[16] The high levels of contact experienced by Indigenous youths appear to directly relate, and feed into, the excessively high rates of contact between the Victoria Police and Indigenous men, a correlation addressed by the RCADIC ten years ago in both its findings and recommendations. The key finding here is that:

• Between 1993/94 and 1996/97 the processing of Indigenous male juveniles rose by a massive 29.5%, from 695 in 1993/94 to 900 in 1996/97. Over the same period processings of non-Indigenous male juvenile alleged offenders rose by 10.8% (from 19,902 in 1993/94 to 22,043 in 1996/97).

As Table 1 shows, this rise of almost 30% was composed of the following elements:

• a 42.4% increase in offenders processed for ‘crime against the person’ (from 85 to 121), compared to a rise of 11.3% for non-Indigenous juveniles;

• a 39.6% increase in ‘crime against property’ (467 to 652), compared to a rise of 13.2% for non-Indigenous juveniles; and

• a reduction in the numbers processed for ‘other crime’, down by 11.2%, and a small rise for non-Indigenous juveniles of 1.8%.

There were some significant increases in the ‘crime against the person’ category for Indigenous juveniles, particularly in relation to assault offences. There were high to very high increases across a range of offence types in the ‘crime against property’ category, with substantial rises in nearly all theft offences. Property crime accounted for the vast bulk of all alleged juvenile offenders processed over the period. However, the single most prevalent offence type occurred in the ‘other crime’ category: there were over 500 offences processed for ‘other summary offences’ over the whole period. This particular offence type contains many of the so-called ‘street offences’ (often of a minor or trivial nature) identified by the RCADIC as commonly occurring in the criminal histories of Indigenous youths and men held in custody. One positive outcome here is that 1996/97 saw a significant reduction in such offences, with a fall from 1993/94 of 20%.[17]

While the number of Indigenous juvenile female alleged offenders processed by the Victoria Police is small in comparison to Indigenous juvenile males, it is important to note that the number of Indigenous juvenile females processed by the Victoria Police increased by 28.8% (from 125 in 1993/94 to 161 in 1996/97), to replicate the trend for Indigenous males. The increase for non-Indigenous juvenile female alleged offenders was a mere 0.4%.

Indigenous arrest rates and over-representation ratios: total

There are clear and dramatic disparities in the arrest rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in Victoria. By 1996/97, the arrest rate (the rate of alleged offenders processed) for Indigenous people in Victoria had grown to a rate of 156 in 1000 of the Indigenous population, up from 137 in 1000 in 1993/94. The figure for non-Indigenous arrests was just over 30 in 1000 in the same period (up from 27 in 1000 in 1993/94). There was virtually no change in the over-representation ratio for Indigenous people in Victoria; in 1996/97 Indigenous people were 5.2 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to have been processed for an offence (whereas in 1993/94 the over-representation factor was 5.1).

Indigenous male juvenile arrest rates

Arrest rates for Indigenous males in Victoria climbed dramatically in the 1990s. While the situation for Indigenous adult men is undoubtedly grave, there was an alarming pattern of growth in arrest rates for Indigenous juvenile males. Between 1993/94 and 1996/97 the arrest rate for Indigenous male juveniles rose from 155 in 1000 of population to 186 in 1000. In other words, arrests of Indigenous young males were averaging approximately 19% of the Indigenous youth community — almost one in five. By comparison, the rate of arrest for non-Indigenous male juveniles was 41 in 1000 at the end of the period (up from 37 in 1000 in 1993/94). In terms of over-representation, Indigenous male juveniles were 4.6 times more likely to be arrested for an offence in 1996/97 than their non-Indigenous counterparts; an increase on the figure in 1993/94 when the over-representation factor was 4.2.

Table 2 reveals high rates of alleged offenders processed and high levels of over-representation for Indigenous male juveniles:

• ‘crime against the person’ rose from 19 in 1000 to 25 in 1000, over-represented by a factor of 7.2 in 1996/97;

• ‘crime against property’ rose from 104 to 135 in 1000, over-represented by a factor of 4.5 in 1996/97; and

• ‘other crime’ fell from 32 to 26 in 1000, over-represented by a factor of 3.6 in 1996/97.

Table 1: Numbers and percentage change of juvenile Indigenous male alleged offenders:
1993/94 to 1996/97
Crime category & class
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
% change*
Homicide
1
0
4
0
-100.0
Rape
0
2
0
0
–**
Sex offences
8
5
9
4
-50.0
Robbery
6
16
19
12
100.0
Assault (indictable)
17
48
26
38
123.5
Assault (summary)
53
97
39
67
26.4
Abduction/kidnap
0
0
0
0
–**
Crime against the person
85
168
97
121
42.4






Arson
0
1
1
9
–**
Criminal damage
17
134
60
81
376.5
Burglary (agg)
0
2
0
1
–**
Burglary (res)
37
57
68
55
48.6
Burglary (other)
110
72
91
141
28.2
Deception
4
5
5
3
-25.0
Handle stolen goods
26
31
26
25
-3.8
Theft from m/car
60
101
132
104
73.3
Theft (shopsteal)
52
58
60
82
57.7
Theft of m/car
104
135
114
75
-27.9
Theft (bicycle)
8
3
14
18
125.0
Theft (other)
49
68
54
58
18.4
Crime against property
467
667
625
652
39.6






Drugs (cult/man/traf)
0
2
1
1
–**
Drugs (poss/use)
12
13
21
22
83.3
Other indictable
9
10
14
7
-22.2
Other summary
122
166
124
97
-20.5
Other crime
143
191
160
127
-11.2






Total
695
1026
882
900
29.5
* Percentage change, 1993/94 to 1996/97
**indicates no computation due to zero entry

In the ‘crime against the person’ category there were significant increases in assault offences, both offence types were over-represented by a factor of 9 in 1996/97. However, it was in the ‘crime against property’ category that the bulk of the increases and the majority of offences occurred. There are five offence categories with rates of arrest over 15 in 1000 in 1996/97 — whereas in 1993/94, there were just two. For ‘other crime’ the largest offence category was ‘other summary’, which fell from 27 in 1000 to 20 in 1000, with an over-representation factor for Indigenous youth of 3.8.

The rate of arrest for Indigenous male adults at the end of this period was a staggering 330 in 1000 Indigenous male adult population.[18] Given the apparent correlation between juvenile and adult rates of arrest, it could reasonably be expected that the almost one in five average arrests for Indigenous youth will translate into similarly higher levels of arrests for Indigenous men in the future.

It is also important to note that there was a significant rise in the arrest rate for Indigenous female juveniles, which rose from 28 in 1000 in 1993/94 to 34 in 1000 in 1996/97, while the rate for non-Indigenous juveniles was unchanged in the same period. In terms of over-representation, the ratio thus worsened, moving from 2.9 in 1993/94 to 3.5 in 1996/97.

Table 3: Method of processing of juvenile alleged offenders as percentages 1996/97: Indigenous & non-Indigenous


Arrest (%)

Caution (%)

Summons (%)

Other (%)

Total (%)

Crime category & class

Indigenous
non-Indigenous
Indigenous
non-Indigenous
Indigenous
non-Indigenous
Indigenous
non-Indigenous
Indigenous
non-Indigenous
Homicide
–*
80.0

–*
0.0

–*
20.0

–*
0.0

–*
100.0
Rape
–*
11.1

–*
2.2

–*
42.2

–*
44.4

–*
100.0
Sex offences
25.0
16.3

0.0
17.9

75.0
49.5

0.0
16.3

100.0
100.0
Robbery
50.0
54.0

0.0
2.0

28.6
42.6

21.4
1.3

100.0
100.0
Assault (indictable)
39.1
34.7

6.5
14.4

54.3
46.6

0.0
4.2

100.0
100.0
Assault (summary)
32.9
19.0

7.6
28.4

59.5
48.1

0.0
4.5

100.0
100.0
Abduction/kidnap
–*
83.3

–*
16.7

–*
0.0

–*
0.0

–*
100.0
Crime against the person
36.4
27.4

6.3
19.5

55.2
46.8

2.1
6.3

100.0
100.0















Arson
33.3
12.7

22.2
36.9

22.2
46.8

22.2
3.6

100.0
100.0
Criminal damage
29.3
17.8

13.0
32.0

55.4
48.3

2.2
1.8

100.0
100.0
Burglary (agg)
100.0
76.9

0.0
0.0

0.0
23.1

0.0
0.0

100.0
100.0
Burglary (res)
66.2
48.8

7.4
18.2

26.5
31.3

0.0
1.6

100.0
100.0
Burglary (other)
58.4
32.7

14.3
27.8

27.3
37.6

0.0
1.9

100.0
100.0
Deception
100.0
29.1

0.0
9.4

0.0
59.5

0.0
2.0

100.0
100.0
Handle stolen goods
50.0
34.8

0.0
19.4

46.7
43.3

3.3
2.6

100.0
100.0
Theft from m/car
59.1
37.4

5.5
19.7

33.6
41.4

1.8
1.4

100.0
100.0
Theft (shopsteal)
31.3
9.3

33.6
65.5

32.1
24.3

3.0
1.0

100.0
100.0
Theft of m/car
73.8
54.6

7.5
11.8

18.8
32.0

0.0
1.7

100.0
100.0
Theft (bicycle)
50.0
19.8

11.1
30.1

38.9
47.7

0.0
2.4

100.0
100.0
Theft (other)
29.9
24.3

11.7
31.3

53.2
42.1

5.2
2.3

100.0
100.0
Crime against property
49.2
27.4

14.0
34.0

34.8
36.9

1.9
1.7

100.0
100.0















Drugs (cult/man/traf)
100.0
56.7

0.0
14.7

0.0
26.9

0.0
1.6

100.0
100.0
Drugs (poss/use)
48.0
30.1

16.0
33.5

36.0
35.0

0.0
1.4

100.0
100.0
Other indictable
50.0
36.2

0.0
20.1

50.0
42.5

0.0
1.1

100.0
100.0
Other summary
36.1
15.4

4.6
35.6

55.6
46.3

3.7
2.8

100.0
100.0
Other crime
39.4
21.4

6.3
33.3

51.4
43.0

2.8
2.4

100.0
100.0
Total
46.2
26.3

12.0
32.6

39.8
38.9

2.1
2.2

100.0
100.0

* Indicates no computation due to zero entry.


Method of processing of Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders[19]

In recommendation 239 the RCADIC made it clear that the arrest of a juvenile by police should not be effected in preference to other forms of processing, such as the issuing of a caution. The Commission urged that when processing juvenile offenders, ‘if the offence alleged to have been committed is not grave and if the indications are that the juvenile is unlikely to repeat the offence or commit other offences at that time then arrest should not be effected’.[20] The Victorian government has previously claimed that police are under instruction to process juvenile alleged offenders according to the seriousness of the offence. Juveniles should only be ‘arrested’ in ‘extreme circumstances’ as a last resort, and only after authorisation by an officer of Senior Sergeant rank or above.[21]

Previous reports on this issue have shown that Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders in Victoria experience almost twice the rate of arrest experienced by non-Indigenous juveniles.[22] This survey provides ample evidence that this imbalance in the results for Indigenous and non-Indigenous juveniles was a consistent feature of police contact with Indigenous juveniles in Victoria in the 1990s.

As Table 3 shows, in 1996/97:

• 46.2% of Indigenous juvenile offenders were arrested, compared to 26.3% of non-Indigenous juvenile offenders; and

• 12% of Indigenous juvenile offenders received a caution, compared to 32.6% of non-Indigenous juveniles.

For the other methods of processing — by summons, and by ‘other’ — the percentages were almost identical for Indigenous and non-Indigenous juveniles.[23] There were high proportions for arrest of Indigenous juveniles in the ‘crime against property’ category across the period; for example, in 1993/94 the figure was 51.8%, compared to 26% for non-Indigenous juveniles. Over each of the years under review, the arrest figures for Indigenous juveniles were always higher than those for non-Indigenous juveniles in each crime category, although there was some variation in a few offence class types. Across the period the proportion of arrests to cautions varied, but only in small degrees. In 1994/95, 46.6% of Indigenous juvenile offenders processed were arrested (11.3% cautioned); in 1995/96 the figure had risen to 49.2% (12.6% cautioned), before falling back in 1996/97 to 46.2% (12.0% cautioned). Arrests for non-Indigenous juveniles moved in a range between 23.5% to 26.3% in 1996/97, while cautions for non-Indigenous juveniles actually fell steadily over the period, from 39.7% in 1993/94 to 32.6% in 1996/97.

Other summary offences

The data on police methods for processing Indigenous juvenile offenders raises serious questions about the policing of Indigenous young people in Victoria. For example, as Table 3 shows, in 1996/97, 36.1% of Indigenous juvenile offenders processed for ‘other summary offences’ were arrested, compared with only 15.4% of non-Indigenous juveniles. The question arises: on what criteria were over one-third of Indigenous juvenile offenders processed for this offence type arrested, when less than one-sixth of non-Indigenous juvenile offenders were arrested? Have police followed their operating procedures requiring the evaluation of all alternatives to arrest? Are Aboriginal juvenile alleged offenders the subject of differential treatment by police, as has been claimed elsewhere,[24] and as this data suggests? As noted above, this category of offence contains many of the ‘street offences’ such as indecent language, resist arrest and offensive behaviour, which the Royal Commission found to be so familiar within the criminal histories of Aboriginal people who are in custody, and particularly among those whose deaths were investigated.[25] Indigenous youths in Victoria are consistently over-represented for this type of offence, suggesting a high level of police intervention in their daily lives.

Serious questions also arise in relation to cautions. In 1996/97, only 4.6% of Aboriginal juvenile offenders processed for ‘other summary’ offences were cautioned, compared to 35.6% of non-Aboriginal offenders, seven times the rate of caution for Indigenous juveniles. The percentage of total processings that results in cautions for ‘other summary offences’ has steadily declined for Indigenous juveniles over the period, while arrests have risen: from 15.9% in 1993/94 (29% for arrests); 13.5% in 1994/95 (27.9% for arrests); 11.9% in 1995/96 (31.4% for arrests); to 4.6% in 1996/97 (36.1% for arrests). How many young Indigenous people processed under ‘other summary offences’ are being arrested for minor offences when they should be cautioned? Notwithstanding the role that repeat offenders may play within these statistics,[26] it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which such a body of offences can be considered grave enough, or the circumstances can be so extreme, as to justify such a high level of arrests, and failure to caution.

The consistent nature of these statistics on methods of processing in the 1990s makes it difficult to comprehend how the RCADIC recommendations in relation to the processing of Indigenous juveniles could be said to have the status of ‘implemented’ in Victoria in the 1990s, as has been claimed.[27] Cunneen and McDonald have pointed out that the use of arrest as a last resort is a key to achieving the goal of reducing Indigenous over-representation in custody.[28] This general principle, enunciated in RCADIC Recommendation 87[29] (and specifically addressed by recommendation 239) does not appear to be operating effectively in Victoria in relation to Indigenous youth.

Conclusion

The method of processing underlies the broader issue of increasing levels of contact between Indigenous male juveniles and the Victoria Police. The number of Indigenous male juvenile alleged offenders processed over the period increased by almost 30% (with a similar upward trend emerging for Indigenous female juveniles). These increases are not supported by shifts in population, and there is clearly a need for all agencies, and authorities to review all aspects of Indigenous youth contact with the Victoria Police and the criminal justice system.

In terms of over-representation, Indigenous male juveniles were over four and a half times more likely to be arrested for an offence than their non-Indigenous counterparts at the close of the period — when arrests of Indigenous male juveniles were averaging almost one in five of the Indigenous youth community. The worsening over-representation ratio for young Indigenous girls and women is also a matter of real concern. Indigenous juvenile alleged offenders are consistently arrested (in preference to cautioning) at almost twice the level of their non-Indigenous counterparts, and they are almost four times more likely to be processed for ‘other summary offences’ than non-Indigenous juveniles. This situation must be addressed, since it provides the base line from which the high levels of contact, and histories of contact with the criminal justice system emerge.

These figures raise serious questions about policing in Victoria. They indicate that far from reversing the trend identified by the Royal Commission in 1991 of Indigenous youths locked in a cycle of arrest, and the creation of criminal histories at an early age, Victoria’s position has continued to worsen through the period under review. The RCADIC recommended that Indigenous communities and organisations be negotiated with, and involved in, the creation of viable community based solutions to the issue of juvenile over- representation, and that appropriate levels of funding be provided to support such local initiatives. The Commission also stressed the importance of police forces addressing their own work practices in relation to the processing of Indigenous juveniles and, wherever possible, to proceed by way of caution or by summons. In other general recommendations the RCADIC called for over-policing to be replaced by community policing, for offensive language charges not to be pursued in cases of police initiated interventions, and for the appropriate training of police in relation to these issues.[30] These matters must be addressed in Victoria if the over- representation of Indigenous young males is to be reduced.

The Commission consistently highlighted the spearhead role of governments in initiating, and funding reforms. In this context, it is to be hoped that the new Aboriginal Justice Agreement, announced last year by the Victorian government, does pursue its stated commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the RCADIC.[31] At the core of any successful strategy for the reduction of Indigenous juvenile over-representation in Victoria’s criminal justice system will be the participation and involvement of the State’s Indigenous communities, and the development of programs led by Indigenous communities.

The present study shows that many of the primary conditions which lay at the heart of the Royal Commission’s investigations are still in place in Victoria, and that the implementation of key recommendations remains as imperative and urgent a matter as it was in 1991. As the former Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Dodson once said in relation to implementation:

What is implementation? Australian Governments claim to have implemented the overwhelming bulk of Royal Commission recommendations. Implementation is not support for recommendations or the planning of policies distant from the site of death. Implementation is outcomes. This means changing legislation, changing priorities, changing cultures and changing procedures.[32]


[*] Greg Gardiner is a Research Fellow, Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Monash University.©2001 Greg Gardiner

[1] Dalton, V., Australian Deaths in Custody and Custody-related Police Operations 1999, No. 153, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 2000; Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) National Correctional Statistics: Prisons — March 2000, National Corrective Services Statistics Unit, 2000.

[2] See United Nations, Press Release, 24 March, p.2, at <http://www. unhcr.ch/Huricane/> .

[3] Gardiner, G., Indigenous People and Criminal Justice in Victoria: Alleged Offenders, Rates of Arrest and Over-representation in the 1990s, Criminal Justice Monograph, Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Monash University, 2001.

[4] See Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Experimental Estimates of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, 30 June 1991 — 30 June 1996, AGPS, Canberra, Cat. no. 3230.0 1998; and, ABS Population by Age and Sex, June 1992 to June 1997, AGPS, Canberra, Cat. no. 3201.0, 1997.

[5] Penalty notices and traffic offences are not included within the Victoria Police Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) system, nor are arrests for drunkenness. Arrests of Aborigines for drunkenness are recorded on a separate database. Victoria Police condense over 1500 offences into 23 offence categories, grouped into three general classes: Crime against the person; Crime against property; Other crime. See Victoria Police Crime Statistics 1996/97, Victoria Police, Melbourne, 1997, p.12.

[6] Alleged offenders ‘[r]efers to persons who have allegedly committed a criminal offence and have been processed for that offence by either arrest, summons, caution or warrant of apprehension’. Victoria Police, above ref 5, p.6. Offenders are counted for each occasion they are processed within the one year, but only for the most serious offence on each occasion.

[7] ‘Arrest’ rates refer to the recorded number of alleged offenders processed of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Victoria in 1000 population of, respectively, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, based on data produced from the 1996 Census.

 A ratio of over-representation was calculated by dividing the arrest rate (alleged offenders processed) in 1000 population for Indigenous people by the rate of arrest (alleged offenders processed) in 1000 population for non-Indigenous people.

[8] In the period, and according to the Victoria Police, the racial appearance of any offender or victim is ‘… based on the subjective assessment of the attending police’. Victoria Police, above ref 5, p.7. (Since November 1997 police have been instructed to ask interviewees; ‘Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent?’). In the period, juveniles were defined by Victoria Police as ‘… persons under 17 years of age at the time of reporting being victimised or processed for allegedly committing criminal offences’ Victoria Police, above ref 5, p.7.

[9] Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCADIC), National Report, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, 1991, Overview and Recommendations, p.6.

[10] RCADIC, above ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, p.6.

[11] RCADIC, above ref 9, Vol. 2, pp.275-82.

[12] Recommendations 234-245, RCADIC, above ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, pp.84-87.

[13] See Gardiner, G. and Mackay, M., Arresting Koories: A Review of Victoria Police Statistics 1995/96, Koorie Research Centre Discussion Paper 7, Monash University, 1997; and, Mackay, M., ‘Aboriginal Juveniles and the Criminal Justice System: The Case of Victoria’, (1996) 21(3) Children Australia pp.11-22.

[14] See Neilson, M.O. and Silverman, R.A. (eds), Native Americans, Crime and Justice, Westview Press, 1996, pp.58-74.

[15] Non-Indigenous male juvenile alleged offenders totaled 22,043 in 1996/97, in a population of 543,962.

[16] Indigenous men in Victoria are processed as alleged offenders at the extraordinary rate of almost 330 in 1000 of population, See Gardiner, G., above, ref 3.

[17] In Table 1, note the dramatic rise in 1994/95 in assault, motor car related theft, and other summary offences processed, a result sparking public debate at the time, and partially reversed the following year, see Gardiner and Mackay, above ref 13.

[18] Gardiner, above, ref 3.

[19] Juvenile alleged offenders refers here in method of processing to male and female juvenile alleged offenders.

[20] RCADIC, above ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, pp.84-85.

[21] Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Victorian Government 1994 Implementation Report, Department of Health and Community Services, Melbourne, 1995, p.225.

[22] Gardiner and Mackay, above, ref 13.

[23] ie 39.8% of Indigenous juvenile offenders were on summons, with a similar percentge of 38.9% for non-Indigenous juveniles; and other processing was 2.1% of the total (2.2% for non-Indigenous).

[24] Mackay, M., Victorian Criminal Justice System Fails ATSI Youth, Koorie Research Centre, Discussion Paper 1, Monash University, 1996.

[25] RCADIC, above ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, p.50, recommended (no.86) that in circumstances of interventions initiated by police the use of offensive language should not be the occasion for arrest.

[26] A matter pertaining to non-Indigenous juveniles as well.

[27] Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, above, ref 21, p.103.

[28] Cunneen, C. and McDonald, D., Keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Out of Custody: An Evaluation of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Office of Public Affairs, Canberra, 1996, p.124.

[29] RCADIC, above, ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, p.50.

[30] RCADIC, above, ref 9, Overview and Recommendations, pp.49-51, pp.79-83.

[31] The Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, Victorian Department of Justice, Melbourne, 2000.

[32] Office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Indigenous Deaths in Custody: 1989-1996, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Canberra, 1996, p.viii.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2001/92.html