The Australian Federal Police Association supports the ACT Chief Police Officer and the ACT Policing members involved in the Woden bus incident, while acknowledging the significant impact the incident had on the young person and his family.
The Commonwealth and ACT Ombudsman’s report provides an important opportunity to learn from what occurred and improve policing practices, but it also contains important findings that must form part of any fair public assessment of the actions of the police officers involved.
The report does not establish that the mistaken identification and arrest were the result of racism or racial profiling. It states there was no direct evidence of racial profiling, identifies that the young person was the passenger who most closely appeared to match the description of the alleged offender for officers who had not seen the photograph, and finds there was no evidence that race led to increased, heightened or more extreme uses of force.
AFPA President Alex Caruana said those findings were significant and should not be overlooked in public discussion of the incident.
“Allegations of racism are extremely serious, particularly when they are directed at individual police officers, and they should be treated with the seriousness and evidentiary standard they deserve.
“The Ombudsman examined an enormous amount of material and did not find direct evidence that our members racially profiled this young person. The report also specifically found there was no evidence that his race resulted in a heightened or more extreme use of force,” Mr Caruana said.
The Ombudsman found that, for officers who had not seen the photograph of the alleged offender, the young person most closely appeared to match the available description because of his clothing and bag. The report also recognises that officers were responding to a dynamic, complex and dangerous situation involving reports of a potentially armed offender.
The AFPA accepts the Ombudsman’s recommendation that ACT Policing review the use of race as a proxy for physical characteristics and move towards objective descriptors such as skin colour, height, build, age, hair and clothing. Improving the precision of suspect descriptions is a legitimate operational lesson from this incident.
The AFPA also believes it is important that the report’s discussion of unconscious bias is represented accurately.
The Ombudsman found that unconscious bias potentially contributed to incorrect assumptions made about the young person’s living situation after the incident. Importantly, the report said that possible bias may have stemmed from the young person’s age or his previous interactions with police. It did not conclude those assumptions were caused by racial bias.
Similarly, when examining the search conducted after the mistaken arrest, the Ombudsman said it was unable to determine what role race played in the officer’s decision.
Mr Caruana said public commentary should distinguish between issues the Ombudsman identified for improvement and conclusions the Ombudsman did not make.
“We should absolutely examine unconscious bias wherever there is evidence it may have influenced decision-making, and police organisations should continually improve their training and practices.
“But we should not turn a finding that unconscious bias potentially influenced an assumption about someone’s living circumstances into a finding that police officers acted because of racism. That is not what this report says.
“There is a significant difference between identifying an area where systems, language or training can improve and accusing individual police officers of being racist. Our members deserve that distinction to be respected,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA supports appropriate accountability and continuous improvement but cautions against judging frontline police officers without properly considering the circumstances in which operational decisions were made.
Police officers are routinely required to make extraordinarily difficult decisions in highly dynamic and uncertain circumstances. In this incident, officers were searching for a person suspected of carrying a knife, had information placing that person on a bus carrying members of the public and had seconds to assess what was in front of them.
“It is easy to examine an incident months later with access to CCTV, body-worn camera footage, radio transmissions, witness accounts and expert analysis and identify what could have happened differently.
“That is completely different from being the police officer entering a bus believing a potentially armed offender may be inside, with seconds to assess the available information and act to protect passengers, colleagues and the broader community,” Mr Caruana said.
The Ombudsman found the incident unfolded extremely quickly. Police entered the bus with firearms drawn, directed the young person from the bus and arrested him before determining less than 90 seconds later that he was not the person they were seeking.
Once the bus had been stopped, the Ombudsman found that the use of firearms, a taser and handcuffs was consistent with AFP use-of-force policy and training. The report also found it was appropriate for officers to take the suspected offender to the ground as quickly as practicable, although it questioned whether the particular takedown technique complied with approved methods.
Those findings reinforce the importance of separating the operational response to a believed armed threat from the communication, identification, command, search and aftercare issues identified elsewhere in the report.
The Ombudsman’s report itself also cautions against scapegoating individual officers and recognises the importance of ACT Policing and AFP members feeling supported to learn from their experiences.
Mr Caruana said that distinction was critical.
“Police officers should be accountable where misconduct occurs, but accountability must be based on evidence and the circumstances confronting the officer at the time.
“We cannot create an environment where members become afraid to make necessary decisions in fast-moving, high-risk situations because they fear those decisions will later be judged using information they could not possibly have had when they acted,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA also supports the ACT Chief Police Officer’s response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The AFP and ACT Policing have accepted five recommendations and accepted three in principle, with none rejected.
Chief Police Officer Scott Lee has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the report, acknowledge areas requiring improvement and support changes addressing command and control, operational decision-making, cultural capability and transparency.
“That is leadership. You can support your members while still recognising that an organisation can learn and improve,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA believes the focus should now be on implementing those lessons through better information, clearer command structures, improved operational systems, effective training and appropriate support for members required to make decisions under pressure.
“Our members go to work knowing that, in a matter of seconds, they may have to make decisions affecting their own safety, the safety of their colleagues and the safety of members of the public.
“We should expect those decisions to be lawful, professional and proportionate. We should also be prepared to defend officers when the evidence does not support serious allegations being made against them.
“The lesson from this incident should not be that police must hesitate when confronted with a potential armed threat. It should be how we give our members the information, training, command structures and support they need to make those difficult decisions as safely and accurately as possible,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA extends its support to the ACT Chief Police Officer and the members involved and will continue to advocate for a policing environment that combines genuine accountability, continuous improvement and proper support for frontline police.
Media Contact AFPA Media and Government Relations Manager Troy Roberts, (02) 6285 1677, troy.r@afpa.org.au
The Australian Federal Police Association supports the ACT Chief Police Officer and the ACT Policing members involved in the Woden bus incident, while acknowledging the significant impact the incident had on the young person and his family.
The Commonwealth and ACT Ombudsman’s report provides an important opportunity to learn from what occurred and improve policing practices, but it also contains important findings that must form part of any fair public assessment of the actions of the police officers involved.
The report does not establish that the mistaken identification and arrest were the result of racism or racial profiling. It states there was no direct evidence of racial profiling, identifies that the young person was the passenger who most closely appeared to match the description of the alleged offender for officers who had not seen the photograph, and finds there was no evidence that race led to increased, heightened or more extreme uses of force.
AFPA President Alex Caruana said those findings were significant and should not be overlooked in public discussion of the incident.
“Allegations of racism are extremely serious, particularly when they are directed at individual police officers, and they should be treated with the seriousness and evidentiary standard they deserve.
“The Ombudsman examined an enormous amount of material and did not find direct evidence that our members racially profiled this young person. The report also specifically found there was no evidence that his race resulted in a heightened or more extreme use of force,” Mr Caruana said.
The Ombudsman found that, for officers who had not seen the photograph of the alleged offender, the young person most closely appeared to match the available description because of his clothing and bag. The report also recognises that officers were responding to a dynamic, complex and dangerous situation involving reports of a potentially armed offender.
The AFPA accepts the Ombudsman’s recommendation that ACT Policing review the use of race as a proxy for physical characteristics and move towards objective descriptors such as skin colour, height, build, age, hair and clothing. Improving the precision of suspect descriptions is a legitimate operational lesson from this incident.
The AFPA also believes it is important that the report’s discussion of unconscious bias is represented accurately.
The Ombudsman found that unconscious bias potentially contributed to incorrect assumptions made about the young person’s living situation after the incident. Importantly, the report said that possible bias may have stemmed from the young person’s age or his previous interactions with police. It did not conclude those assumptions were caused by racial bias.
Similarly, when examining the search conducted after the mistaken arrest, the Ombudsman said it was unable to determine what role race played in the officer’s decision.
Mr Caruana said public commentary should distinguish between issues the Ombudsman identified for improvement and conclusions the Ombudsman did not make.
“We should absolutely examine unconscious bias wherever there is evidence it may have influenced decision-making, and police organisations should continually improve their training and practices.
“But we should not turn a finding that unconscious bias potentially influenced an assumption about someone’s living circumstances into a finding that police officers acted because of racism. That is not what this report says.
“There is a significant difference between identifying an area where systems, language or training can improve and accusing individual police officers of being racist. Our members deserve that distinction to be respected,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA supports appropriate accountability and continuous improvement but cautions against judging frontline police officers without properly considering the circumstances in which operational decisions were made.
Police officers are routinely required to make extraordinarily difficult decisions in highly dynamic and uncertain circumstances. In this incident, officers were searching for a person suspected of carrying a knife, had information placing that person on a bus carrying members of the public and had seconds to assess what was in front of them.
“It is easy to examine an incident months later with access to CCTV, body-worn camera footage, radio transmissions, witness accounts and expert analysis and identify what could have happened differently.
“That is completely different from being the police officer entering a bus believing a potentially armed offender may be inside, with seconds to assess the available information and act to protect passengers, colleagues and the broader community,” Mr Caruana said.
The Ombudsman found the incident unfolded extremely quickly. Police entered the bus with firearms drawn, directed the young person from the bus and arrested him before determining less than 90 seconds later that he was not the person they were seeking.
Once the bus had been stopped, the Ombudsman found that the use of firearms, a taser and handcuffs was consistent with AFP use-of-force policy and training. The report also found it was appropriate for officers to take the suspected offender to the ground as quickly as practicable, although it questioned whether the particular takedown technique complied with approved methods.
Those findings reinforce the importance of separating the operational response to a believed armed threat from the communication, identification, command, search and aftercare issues identified elsewhere in the report.
The Ombudsman’s report itself also cautions against scapegoating individual officers and recognises the importance of ACT Policing and AFP members feeling supported to learn from their experiences.
Mr Caruana said that distinction was critical.
“Police officers should be accountable where misconduct occurs, but accountability must be based on evidence and the circumstances confronting the officer at the time.
“We cannot create an environment where members become afraid to make necessary decisions in fast-moving, high-risk situations because they fear those decisions will later be judged using information they could not possibly have had when they acted,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA also supports the ACT Chief Police Officer’s response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The AFP and ACT Policing have accepted five recommendations and accepted three in principle, with none rejected.
Chief Police Officer Scott Lee has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the report, acknowledge areas requiring improvement and support changes addressing command and control, operational decision-making, cultural capability and transparency.
“That is leadership. You can support your members while still recognising that an organisation can learn and improve,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA believes the focus should now be on implementing those lessons through better information, clearer command structures, improved operational systems, effective training and appropriate support for members required to make decisions under pressure.
“Our members go to work knowing that, in a matter of seconds, they may have to make decisions affecting their own safety, the safety of their colleagues and the safety of members of the public.
“We should expect those decisions to be lawful, professional and proportionate. We should also be prepared to defend officers when the evidence does not support serious allegations being made against them.
“The lesson from this incident should not be that police must hesitate when confronted with a potential armed threat. It should be how we give our members the information, training, command structures and support they need to make those difficult decisions as safely and accurately as possible,” Mr Caruana said.
The AFPA extends its support to the ACT Chief Police Officer and the members involved and will continue to advocate for a policing environment that combines genuine accountability, continuous improvement and proper support for frontline police.
Media Contact AFPA Media and Government Relations Manager Troy Roberts, (02) 6285 1677, troy.r@afpa.org.au
