Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 - NSW ...

It should be clear that this legislation actually describes the sorts of premises that we are talking about. We are not talking about
normal domestic residences with a flyscreen door, we are talking about fortified premises… [the legislation] is designed to catch
sophisticated criminals who have been taking advantage of the inability of the police to effectively deal with a matter at the forensic
evidence level. 595
One way to assess how the Act has been implemented is to examine the extent to which the type of premises involved in uses of the
legislation in Cabramatta resemble those the Act was intended to target.
Police documents suggest that about half, or 17, of the flats and houses in Cabramatta at which police took action under the Act fit key
indicia described in the parliamentary debate on the legislation. According to the descriptions provided by police, these premises were
either fortified, non-domestic, or both. Eight of the 32 premises did not appear to be used for domestic purposes.
For this part of our report, we examined police documents relating to uses of the Act in Cabramatta to investigate the nature of the
premises at which the Act was used. We have quantified the number of times police noted the following characteristics of particular
premises:
• the presence of security measures and
• the premises were unfurnished, or there was minimal evidence of domestic life at the premises.
Our ability to assess the types of premises at which the Act was implemented is dependent upon the information about the premises
police have provided. As we have noted previously in this chapter, police are not required to record any particular aspect of their use of the
legislation, such as a description of the premises, in the free text event narrative field. Notwithstanding the limitations inherent in this data,
a number of features of our analysis of this data were supported by independent information sources, such as interviews with police and
health professionals who work in Cabramatta.
It is also important to acknowledge that our assessment of the type of premises is largely based on descriptions written by police, and
in most cases, it has not been possible to triangulate this data. For example, most court proceedings examined for this review have not
involved a discussion of the nature of the premises. In addition, we have only been able to review a small number of search warrant
videos.
The value of multiple information sources is illustrated by case study 1. This case relates to the implementation of the Act at fortified nondomestic
premises. In this instance, the nature of the premises was discussed in the court proceedings. In the event narrative, the door on
the premises was described as a “heavily fortified with a heavy metal door”. 596 However, it emerged at court that the door on the premises
was the same as the door on the flat next door, and a police witness conceded that the security on the premises was not unusual for the
area. 597 While this particular premises was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a drug premises, this case study exemplifies some of
the concerns raised in parliamentary debate on the Act about establishing what constitutes normal levels of security in an area. 598
7.4.2. Non-domestic drug premises in Cabramatta
Of the 34 premises in Cabramatta at which the Act was used over the review period, eight involved premises that were described by
police as non-domestic, and five of these eight premises also had some security measures. 599
These premises were variously described as unfurnished, “not … a normal place of residence” 600 and “very sparsely furnished”. 601 Police
noted that three of the eight non-domestic drug premises had no food in the kitchen. Two of these premises did not have a fridge. One of
the eight non-domestic drug premises was described in an event narrative in the following way:
The premises was barely furnished with only the bare essentials. Only one room within the premises contained a bed. None of the
wardrobes within the premises contained clothing. The remainder of the premises were littered with rubbish. 602
Another premises had no furnishings other than a television, a video and a mat on the floor.
Security measures were noted by police in respect of five of the eight non-domestic drug premises. The type of security ranged from
deadlocks and a chain lock, to a wire cage enclosing a balcony. Another premises had a metal plate fixed near a door lock that police
alleged was an attempt to strengthen the security of the door.
595 The Hon. R. Debus, NSWPD, 6 June 2001, p. 14565.
596 COPS event narrative, Cabramatta LAC, Drug Premises Incident 3.
597 Liverpool Local Court, Police v Dang Nguyen, 4 December 2001.
598 These concerns are discussed in section on “fortifications” in the Chapter, “The Definition of Drug Premises”.
599 COPS event narratives, Cabramatta LAC, Drug Premises Incidents 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 10 and 19.
600 COPS event narrative, Cabramatta LAC, Drug Premises Incident 4.
601 COPS event narratives, Cabramatta LAC, Drug Premises Incident 7.
602 COPS event narrative, Cabramatta LAC, Drug Premises Incident 10.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 113