The public interest took the back seat over the coronial inquiry into the 2003 bushfire while political and individual interests attempted avoid scrutiny. Nearly three years later the public is waiting for answers.
Let’s hope the same thing does not happen with the Clea Rose case.
Clea was hit by a car in the bus interchange in Civic in the early hours of July 30 and died some days later in hospital. The car, allegedly stolen and speeding, was being driven by a juvenile. Earlier the car had been spotted by police who had given chase with lights flashing.
Charges have been laid against the driver. Police are continuing their investigation into that. They are also conducting an internal inquiry into the conduct of the police officers – an inquiry by the Professional Standards Unit.
The big problem here is that major elements of both of these hearings will not be open to the public.
The public has a major interest in this case, as obviously does the family.
The police inquiry will be closed. There will be no advocate for the public interest at it. The police say they will make their findings public – whether any blame has been attached, punishment imposed of changes to procedures recommended. For example, earlier this year they made their findings in weapon-firing case in Wanniassa public.
But they cite privacy reasons for not making the whole process public. Privacy is a spurious ground in these cases. This event happened in a public place. If you are worried about privacy, stay at home.
It is reasonable and valuable for any organisation to have internal inquiries into incidents which might indicate failings, so the organisation can improve. And no doubt those conducting the inquiry will do so thoroughly and diligently, but it will always be with a police eye.
Let’s hope it would not be like in the Menendez case in Britain where what came out after initial police inquires was entirely different from what came out later – in the media, as it happens. It probably would never have come out any other way.
An internal inquiry has its place, but let’s not allow it to be a substitute for an independent inquiry at which the public would have an advocate.
It is the old question of “who guards the guardians?” The question arises with such guardians as the police, lawyers, judges, politicians and to some extent journalists. These people are all to some extent guardians.
This is where the coroner comes in. The coroner inquires into fires and deaths in unusual circumstances (or in public places) and typically has a counsel assisting. The public disquiet at such events requires answers to questions concerning public safety (including the safety question of whether someone is at large who should answer charges).
The coroner’s inquiry is there to allay public concerns. It is not there to determine guilt – to fine, jail or order people to pay damages.
The coronial system should be more robust. At present, too much weight is given to the rights of people already charged or about to be charged and to individual reputation. As a result coronial inquests have been delayed pending criminal trials or been subjected to appeals to higher courts to constrain them.
In the Clea Rose case the obvious issue of public safety and police pursuits arises.
It is in the interest of not only the public but also the police (those involved directly and the force in general) to have that public disquiet dealt with quickly. What difficulties do police face? How safe are innocent road-users from police pursuits? And what happened in this case?
It is not good for the police or the public to allow it to fester – like the bushfire inquiry.
In all likelihood a quick inquiry would yield more understanding of the difficulty of the police position.
How often do we hear the phrase, “Where are the cops when you need them?” as some lout speeds by. But when they are there, what exactly would you like them to do?
Police don’t like pursuits. They are risky to the police themselves and to bystanders. In one respect the police position is similar to that of journalists. The responsible abandonment of a pursuit is rarely reported just as the responsible decision of a journalist not to publish (of its nature) is never published.
What if a pursuit is abandoned and the pursued car then crashes killing or injuring innocent people? What pressure is there on an officer who has to make a snap decision balancing these conflicts?
The Clea Rose case indicates that these questions need early airing.
Some of the particular elements of the case also need airing.
We know there are guidelines governing urgent duty driving; that police are trained in them and do their best to follow them.
But should Clea’s case require a review. An AFP spokesman said in answer to the question whether the guidelines had been changed since Clea’s death, “The AFP’s urgent duty driving guidelines continue to be applied rigorously to all instances of urgent duty driving.”
Clea’s parents were on scene within minutes of the impact. They say they saw no police at the scene.
The questions an ordinary member of the public might ask are: Did the police in the patrol car:
Not see the hit and give up the chase?
Not see the hit and continue the chase?
See the hit and continue the chase?
See the hit and give up the chase?
All of those have implications. We know what did not happen: that they gave up chase and attended the hit pedestrian.
The police case, I guess, is that in no way did the initial police chase cause the juvenile driver to speed up.
All these questions – like the bushfire questions – will remain unanswered for longer than is necessary if the present coronial inquiry system continues.
The coroner should get on with it now with the obvious proviso that none of the evidence in the coronial inquiry should be admissible in any criminal hearing.
Moreover, given the coroner cannot affect rights, witnesses (including the police involved) should be compelled to give evidence. At present there is no guarantee of that. The police spokesman said, “This is a hypothetical question. It would be prudent to await formal advice if and when a coronial inquest is announced.”
It shows that the public interest will get the back seat until the coronial inquiry is seen for what it is – a system to address legitimate public disquiet, not one to make binding decisions on guilt or liability.