Legislative Council
POLICE, CAPSICUM SPRAY
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking
the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Police, a question about olio resin
capsicum spray, otherwise known as OC spray.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In January this year, the Commissioner of Police issued a
media release headed, `OC Spray gets the okay.' The gist of the release was that after a
six month trial, the issue of OC or capsicum spray would be extended because it had been
useful in protecting life and in disarming distressed individuals intent on harming
themselves or others. The Police Commissioner determined, understandably, in the Police
Gazette of 11 March 1998 that only those who have attained the required standard in
training would be authorised to carry capsicum spray. On 23 September, the Police
Gazette listed a comprehensive training program for use of the spray.
Over the months September to November, police officers based in country regions,
from the West Coast to the Riverland and the South-East, were to receive training. I was
in the police headquarters at Whyalla on Monday and was approached by serving officers in
that division who complained that the restriction of the use of the OC spray was seriously
hampering their police work and seemed quite illogical. Understandably, they have been
given a preference in training, quite often because of their remote working situations.
However, the anomaly is that ordinary serving officers out on patrol control are not
allowed to carry or use OC spray. If they confront a situation that requires the use of OC
spray, they must either radio for a senior sergeant, sergeant or senior constable acting
as a second in charge to come out with the spray and use it, or go back to base and get
one of those people to come out with them. As they lamented—and I could understand
this quite clearly—this is a totally fatuous way of implementing the use of OC spray
in practical situations.
Many officers in the State are ready and trained to use what has been judged by the
Commissioner as an effective tool for protecting life. As I have just pointed out, not
only there but in many other places these officers are not allowed to carry it. In the Police
Gazette of 11 March 1998, the Commissioner also restricted the use of capsicum spray
to those officers—namely, senior sergeants, sergeants, and senior constables acting
as second in charge. This means that most of the time an officer who believes that
capsicum spray could be useful has to approach his superior officer to get it.
The Police Gazette of 23 September notes that, at the end of country
training, consideration will be given to approve the carriage of the spray by more police
`up to one per crew to all trained members occupying operational postings'. So, although
two officers in a patrol car might have been trained in its use and both might be attacked
at the same time, the Police Commissioner is saying that, even then, he will consider
permitting only one of them to carry the spray.
In contrast, Transit Squad officers are entitled to carry the spray currently
without any restriction, if they consider that the situation warrants it. The other
contrast is that now these officers who are deemed unsuitable to carry OC spray have Smith
and Wesson .357 magnums on their hips, with the right to use their own discretion as to
when they should be used. They are authorised to use batons and handcuffs but they are not
allowed to use the OC spray.
I ask the Attorney to refer on to his colleague my question, namely, whether this
policy of the Police Commissioner is one which has been forced on him by funding
restrictions. Does the Government prefer police to use guns rather than capsicum spray in
dealing with potentially violent offenders? If not, will the Police Minister consider
issuing a directive to the Police Commissioner on this issue, pursuant to sections 6 and 8
of the Police Act 1998?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will be pleased to refer the questions to my colleague in
another place and bring back a reply. In relation to the last question, it ought to be
noted that very few directions are ever given to the Police Commissioner about operational
matters.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: And rightly so!
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: If the honourable member says `Rightly so,' one must ask,
`What distinguishes this from those other circumstances in which it would not be
appropriate to give directions to the Commissioner on operational matters?' I would be
most surprised if the Government would consider that this was an appropriate case in which
to give directions to the Commissioner. The Commissioner will have to make his own
judgments about the appropriateness or otherwise of the guidelines that he has previously
issued. However, in relation to the rest of the questions, I will bring back a reply in
due course.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Does the Government consider that the use of the OC spray is
a safety measure that is suitably and widely used in public and, if so, would the
Government please make that opinion known to the Commissioner?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The question will be considered by my colleague, and I will
bring back a reply.
Read the Government's reply: 9 February 1999
Site assisted by Intramedia Design