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

Another data limitation is that COPS event narratives, which provide a key source of information about uses of the Drug Premises Act, are
free text fields, and therefore police are not required to record any particular details of their use of the legislation. However, it is likely that
if police believe after searching a place that it is a drug premises, and they have charged people under the Act, they will include relevant
information in the event narrative, such as noting the presence of fortifications, syringes, firearms or other features that will support their
assertion that the premises are drug premises. 66
This data limitation also applies to our examination of event narratives relating to uses of the drug move-on powers. The free text event
narrative field was the only means to systematically capture information on uses of the drug move-on powers such as:
• why a person came to police attention
• the reasons why a drug move-on was issued
• if a drug move-on was disobeyed, the behaviour or conduct that constituted disobeying the direction that had been issued
and
• the type of direction that had been given.
However, because police are not required to record any particular aspect of their use of the drug move-on powers in the event narrative
field, it was not always possible to determine whether there appeared to be insufficient grounds to issue the drug move-on, or if the
reasons were not adequately recorded.
A final issue in relation to COPS data is the artificial inflation of certain statistics. NSW Police make use of statistics as a performance
measure for commands. An issue that was identified during our earlier review of move-ons was that some police commanders may have
felt pressured to increase the number of move-ons (and knife searches) recorded on COPS. While it was difficult to quantify how this
pressure affected the total number of move-ons recorded on COPS, it is possible that it influenced recording practices and actual use of
the move-on power by police. 67
It is possible that this was also the case with drug move-ons. However, this was not a focus for this review.
We also received a complaint in 2001 which raised questions about the way police recorded knife searches on COPS. 68
The complaint investigation found that knife searches had been incorrectly recorded because of a lack of knowledge, poor supervision
and as a result of the configuration of COPS (which only allowed searches to be recorded in one way). For example, some searches that
were conducted under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 69 were being recorded as knife searches under the Summary Offences Act. 70
As a result of this complaint, on 1 July 2003 NSW Police changed the way that searches and move-ons are recorded on COPS. Searches
and move-ons are no longer recorded under the umbrella of “street offence”, but are now recorded under the new categories of “person
search” 71 or “move-on”. Another outcome of this complaint was that police conducted their own audit of move-on and knife search
events. Our audit reflected a number of the findings of the NSW Police audit.
2.5.2. NSW Police audit of COPS
NSW Police have identified that the quality of move-on event narratives is “in need of improvement”. 72 A recent audit conducted by NSW
Police of move-on and search event narratives found that 42% of the of the narratives examined did not contain enough information. 73
The NSW Police audit identified factors such as insufficient knowledge of the legislation, or a lack of understanding of recording
requirements as reasons why a move-on may not be correctly recorded. 74 In our audit of the drug move-on powers for this review we
found that some incidents had been recorded as drug move-ons, when drugs were not mentioned in the event narrative at all and/or the
narrative did not state that the person was actually moved on. For example, two cases we audited were each recorded as a move-on,
after a person had been moved-on because of an indication by a drug dog.
66 In a focus group we conducted at Cabramatta Police, officers said that event narratives are “your facts sheet”, where police put in the “proofs”
relating to the offence.
67 NSW Ombudsman, Policing Public Safety, pp. 93-94, 226.
68 For more information about this complaint, see the NSW Ombudsman, Annual Report 2002-2003, p. 68.
69 According to s37(4) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a member of the police force may stop, search and detain: (a) any person
in whose possession or under whose control the member reasonably suspects there is, in contravention of this Act, any prohibited plant
or prohibited drug, or (b) any vehicle in which the member reasonably suspects there is any prohibited plant or prohibited drug which is, in
contravention of this Act, in the possession or under the control of any person.
70 Summary Offences Act, s28A.
71 Under this new recording system, police are now also required to record the legislative authority under which searches are conducted.
72 NSW Police, “Strategic Audit of Move-ons & Knife Searches”, December 2003.
73 Ibid. The impetus for this audit was the complaint we received about recorded knife searches on COPS that we discuss below.
74 This audit was conducted by NSW Police following a complaint that was made to our office about the recording of knife searches. This complaint,
and the outcome of this audit, is discussed later in this chapter.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 25