Police,Victim and Co-victim Interaction: Insights from Australia

Introduction

Media commentary over the past few decades has highlighted fatal interactions that Australian state and territory police have had with vulnerable people. Some recent examples are the 2021 police shooting of ‘JC’ a 29-year-old Yamatji woman released two weeks prior from a Western Australian prison ³ or the 2020 police shooting of Mohamad Ikraam Bahram who was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia prior to stabbing a Brisbane tourist with a knife ⁴ or in the same year Queensland police also shot and killed Raghe Mohamed Abdi, 22, who was armed with a knife threatening life near a busy highway. Following all these incidents, families, who regarded themselves as co-victims of the incident, friends, Coroners and advocates have argued that the subsequent investigations were marred by allegations of mismanagement, that victims and co-victims were marginalized and that the mental health systems nationally are failing.

In many cases, police are called when a vulnerable person is negatively interacting with others in a public space or when a family cannot negate their behaviours within the home. ⁵ Extant research tells us that if the initial communication by individuals with authorities is negative, victims will not proceed into the formal criminal justice system (CJS) and may disengage with no outcome to assist them in healing altogether. ^{6 , 7} The consequences of victim and co-victim disengagement can be grave. Some examples of the impact of the victim not working through the system with the police and courts are little to no physical or psychological end to the crime that caused the authorities to be involved in the first instance. In addition, due to a lack of accountability for the perpetrator, little deterrence for future or recidivist perpetrators may exist. Further, faith in the capability of the CJS, effects on the relationships between the police and the community they serve ⁸ and a reluctance to engage in the future with police may be an outcome.

Vulnerable people, whether victims or co-victims, are involved in 75% of police interactions in most international jurisdictions. ⁹ Family violence (where women and children are mostly victims or witnesses of abuse) and counterterrorism (where religious minorities are often the subject of hate crime) are both placed high on police agencies’ strategic priorities. These issues almost exclusively deal with vulnerable populations. Although vulnerability is the common denominator across most policing matters there is a lack of evidence-based discussion or policy formulation that includes consideration of community members’ vulnerabilities in everyday police work. ¹⁰ Given the extent of the problem internationally, too little attention has been paid to the plight of co-victims. Little direct attention has been paid to identifying them, validating their experiences or assisting them in either their support of the victims or, even more importantly, their personal struggles to cope.

This article will explore specific areas to highlight the complexities involved in police interaction with victims and co-victims in Australia, contributing to the narrative on this important, yet often overlooked aspect of policing.

The Role of Police

Within democratic policing models, the function of police is to uphold the law, apply due process, reduce and investigate crime and apprehend and prosecute suspects. ¹¹ Police are required to do this with integrity, whilst using discretion and proportionality. Accordingly, in Australia, the role of the police includes law enforcement, public order and safety, security and justice. ¹²⁰ Whilst police are legally obligated to act with integrity, maintain confidentiality and work to maintain the right of fair process for all; ¹³¹ they also have the ability to use discretion in certain circumstances, a point long acknowledged by police researchers. ^{142 , 153 164 ,} Discretion is:

a key feature of policing in Australia and is premised on the principle that ‘strict adherence to the letter of the law in many cases would be too harsh and justice may be better served by not introducing an offender into the criminal justice process’. ¹⁷⁵

This use of police discretion has a significant impact on both offenders and victims of crime. Interactions between police and victims are often complex, unequal and sometimes conducted in situations where danger, confusion and trauma are present. Police may not initially be able to clearly identify participants in an event as either a victim, offender, witness or bystander, which may result in participants being identified and treated incorrectly.

On any given day, police may attend accidents, enforce traffic law, attend critical incidents and emergencies, deal with community safety concerns or deal with drug and alcohol-affected people. They will also protect and collect evidence to investigate crime, prevent antisocial behaviour and play a pivotal role in dispute resolution.^{7, 186 , 197} During any one of these interactions, police will encounter vulnerable people, witnesses and victims. Each one may present differently, and police will need to support and protect the victim whilst preparing to solve the issues as well as considering the well-being of all involved. For many victims and co-victims, they will have complex levels of vulnerability such as drug or alcohol affected, homeless or injured, and for some, there will be added levels of complexity when, for example, they may also be a member of a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community, have a physical or mental disability or identify as LGBTQI+.

Media and Coronial reports have presented numerous issues, including lack of care, inequality and lack of empathy and belief in the detail provided when the interaction between police and victims/co-victims does not go well and ends up with lack of trust police, injury, or worse, death. Noting the diverse nature of Australian communities and the complex needs of both the communities and the individuals within this poses a significant challenge to General Duties police on the street. The police must try to manage the expectations of the parties involved, whilst remaining open to the nature of human interaction at every level. This is especially true for vulnerable victims/co-victims where interpersonal violence is involved and the persons have to go to hospital, mediation or court.

In addition to the human interaction activity of police and community, there are economic costs that need to be considered. Crime in Australia is estimated to cost the country billions of dollars annually. In fact, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported that approximately $6.4 billion was due to organized crime, crime prevention costs about $16.4 billion, and illegal drug activity costs about $16.5 billion. ²⁰⁸ Noting that many interpersonal crimes of violence, ‘scams’ or phishing crimes are grossly under-reported, it can be argued that these financial costs are not the true extent of the problem. ²¹⁹

Many crime types specifically target vulnerable victims through coercion, threats, fraud, identity theft or manipulation. It is often family and friends, the co-victims, who must step in to assist and burden themselves with the often-troublesome outcome. Additionally, this estimation does not account for intangible losses, those incremental adverse losses that are not economic in nature, such as the impact of an individual’s permanent disability or death, long-lasting and permanent change to a community through fear of crime or gangs or a decline in trust that support from police or community groups will be either provided, or if it is provided, will be of benefit.

Defining Victims and Co-victims

Anyone can be a victim of crime. By definition, a victim of crime is ‘…anyone who suffers physical or emotional harm, or loss or damage to property as a result of a criminal offence’. ²²⁰ It can also include a close relative of a person suffering from the victim of a criminal offence. This definition clearly identifies two types of victims, the primary intended victim and, secondly, those who witnessed the crime event(s) or who experience the repercussions and become vicariously involved.

This ‘co-victim’ of an act of violence is anyone who is harmed as a direct result of witnessing the act of violence that resulted in the injury or death of the primary victim. ²³¹ Co-victims, often termed secondary or indirect victims, ²⁴² are usually family members, close friends guardians, carers, co-workers or witnesses. From the first recording of the event, the process is controlled and overseen by a myriad of criminal justice agencies in particular the police agency. Stretesky et al. (2016) ²⁵³ and Gekoski et al. (2013) ²⁶⁴ identify that secondary victimization varies from the type of interaction co-victims have with criminal justice agencies along a continuum to feeling invisible due to a lack of information about the case or being sidelined by criminal court proceedings.

A vulnerable person can be anyone who lacks social capital and is defined as a person whose ability to understand and effectively present their case or fully participate in the review process may be impaired or not developed. ²⁷⁵ Factors that may impact the individual’s ability to understand the processes or participate may include the following main areas:

Acquired brain injury: Neurological disorders as a consequence of trauma to the head and/or brain.

This list is not exhaustive and other factors, or a combination of factors, may affect an individual’s capacity to participate in the review process. Persons who are parties to or witnesses in reviews may be vulnerable. ²⁹⁷

For many people who interact with police, the incident passes without issue and they are normally satisfied with the outcome. However, for vulnerable victims or co-victims, it can be a very different story. However, if these principles are not adhered to, severe consequences can arise for all parties involved. Doerner and Lab state:

First, they suffer at the hands of their criminals. Then, by participating in the criminal justice system, they risk even more damage. By making a choice to void the system, victims are able to minimize their losses. ²⁸⁶

Police Interaction with Victims

The New South Wales Police Force is the largest force in Australia, and it utilizes the New South Wales Charter of Victim’s Rights. ²⁹⁷ The Charter states that police will investigate crimes and treat victims, and subsequently co-victims, with empathy, fairness and respect. Police are also the conduit for victims of crime to access specialized services and support. Overall, police normally strive to be professional, lead by example, be accountable to both internal and external stakeholders, and assist victims and co-victims from when they first respond to the finalization of court proceedings. They also uphold the law, maintain high personal standards, follow procedures, are effective communicators and work with victims openly, honestly and consistently whilst delivering their service. ³⁰⁸

On a more positive note, a relatively recent national Australian survey identified that across all age groups, people had the most confidence in police when asked about groups within the CJS. Answers ranged from people aged 18 to 24 (77.5%), 63.5% for 25–34-year-olds to 84% for those aged 65 and over. ³¹⁹ The comparatively high level of confidence in the police among individuals under 24 years of age is a surprising result given the likelihood that they would be engaged in the CJS.

However, even with higher levels of confidence in the police, significant issues can arise for victims, co-victims and subsequently the police investigators when victims feel ignored, disbelieved, pressured to drop their complaint or if they notice that the only important part of the process for police is them making a statement. ^{320 , 331} These issues highlight problems for the police as well, as it is true that their main task in assisting a victim is as an investigator, and evidence collection is key; however, particularly for complex matters, it is critical that they build rapport with the victim and co-victims so that their working relationship can successfully build community cohesion.

Critically, in some instances, police have very little interaction with victims/co-victims, except to take a statement or process their remains in the case of a homicide. ³⁴² However, many people feel that other specialized agencies are better equipped to deal with the ongoing complex nature of the victim’s trauma. ^{353 , 364} The problem arises, however, when police exhibit cognitive bias, tunnel vision and groupthink that can influence police/victim interaction, resulting in investigative failures ³⁷⁵ and a reduction in the value of police, which consequently develops fractures in social cohesion.

From a cognitive bias ³⁸⁶ perspective, too often a police officer’s unconscious beliefs inadvertently have an influence on how one interacts with victims and co-victims, and how an investigation proceeds. ³⁹⁷ A significant element here is when cognitive bias and specifically fundamental attribution error is understood, it has the ability to focus on the wrong suspect. This error happens when ‘people readily and quickly attribute someone’s actions to their character or personality, rather than considering situational or external factors that might explain the behavior’. ⁴⁰⁸ However, cognitive bias is not the only issue that can alter criminal investigations.

The legitimacy of information and policing is the ‘belief that a person or institution receives authority over citizens to act honestly and according to the citizen’s best interests’. ⁴¹⁹ This leads to the issue of tunnel vision, ⁴²⁰ which has a significant impact on the process of criminal investigations because there is a tendency to use short-cuts and or to filter evidence in a selective manner when building a case with the goal of obtaining a conviction. ⁴³¹ Elaad ⁴⁴² found that the longer a person serves in the policing field, the tendency to use tunnel vision grows as well as the presumption of guilt. Tunnel vision works in conjunction with confirmation bias, whereby police favour specific bits of information that confirm the individuals’ preconceptions of the suspect. ⁴⁵³ This illustrates a lack of critical analysis of evidence and providing fairness within the CJS. The over-reliance ‘on internal sources whilst ignoring accurate external information’ hinders the relationship between the victims, co-victims and the community. ⁴⁶⁴ However, it is important to recognize that not only tunnel vision but also cognitive bias can be filtered down into a term known as groupthink. ⁴⁷⁵

Police officers are trained to depend on each other due to the dangerous, psychologically and physically demanding roles that they have undertaken. They have a bond whereby if they are in a life-or-death situation, they know their partner has their back. This comes with an enormous amount of pressure, especially when police officers are trained to stick together. ⁴⁸⁶ However, this also highlights the element of groupthink, which even in circumstances in which people may not agree, people will take on the view of the group in order to keep the peace, fear of repercussions and being rejected by the group. ⁴⁹⁷ Group dynamics and leadership have extraordinary influences in which if there is an ethical boundary that has been crossed or a myriad of other issues, individuals may not believe they can question or complain to leadership due to the overarching groupthink dynamics. ⁵⁰⁸ In terms of victims and co-victims, this can have devastating impacts if police officers feel that an investigation has not been conducted in an ethical and critical way. ⁵¹⁹ This is because even if they are aware that victims and co-victims have not been treated or assisted in an appropriate way, police officers may not come forward to rectify the issue. This, as a result, can corrode social cohesion and the trust that which citizens put in the police force.

As a result, there is a clear need to recognize these risks and put in place strategies to minimize them. Further, victims often approach the police in an emotional context, where they are looking to satisfy needs related to their harm and loss. Law enforcement, in the main, comes from an objective and professional context, where in the worst instances, their mannerisms and behaviour can appear dismissive. ⁵²⁰ Contextually, however, traumatic encounters disassociate them from their emotions. ⁵³¹

Whilst the victim of any crime deserves the fullest attention and services of the police, there are several areas of police/victim interaction in Australia that draw more comments and criticisms, particularly in the media, surrounding the major issues already discussed. These cases involve missing persons, family/domestic and sexual violence, cases involving Indigenous people and cases involving people suffering from mental illness. Examples of this will now be discussed to illustrate the issues raised in this article.

Concluding Remarks

Given that the police are usually the first point of contact for victims and co-victims within the CJS, the relationship forged by police in the initial meeting is critical and needs to be conducted professionally and in the best interests of the victims. A strong and trustworthy relationship between police and the wider community is also vital to public order and safety and allows police to carry out their functions with public consent. ⁸⁸⁶ Although the primary function of police generally includes law enforcement, keeping the peace and serving the community, it is critical that they use discretion and empathy, especially when encountering people as victims and co-victims. The examples presented in this article show that, whilst not being presented as typical, the victims and co-victims were clearly dissatisfied with the way they were treated by the police.

Clearly, victims of crime play an essential and critical role in the CJS, as once they have reported the alleged crime against them, they must participate in the investigation and, then, if the investigation process is successful, they will most probably be required to testify in court. ⁸⁹⁷ The interaction between police and victims in Australia is significant, and some would say that without successful court outcomes resulting from positive interactions between police victims and co-victims, there is little to no deterrent to the potential and current perpetrators of crime which could lead to a potential rise in criminal acts and a reduction in societal safety. ^{908 , 919} Victims and co-victims, especially those without support networks and have experienced trauma, can find it difficult to navigate legal, medical or psychological support at the time of the incident or upon reporting the crime.

Many victims and indeed co-victims that the police encounter have unfavourable behaviours, adverse health consequences and high levels of homelessness and risk-taking behaviours. A substantial proportion of people known to police live with mental illness, drug and alcohol misuse, homelessness and intentional self-harm, and when these are victims or co-victims, the police should treat them with this in mind in terms of contact, advice and understanding.

Police officers have a vital role in using their powers to protect, respond to and support victims and co-victims of crime. To appropriately assist vulnerable victims, it is critical that the police remain calm, objective and act with sensitivity and are proportionate in their response. Whilst responding to the needs of the person who called for their assistance, they must also establish safety for the victim, effectively communicate their intentions and ultimately assist the vulnerable person in getting help and support, whilst upholding the law.

Education, training and an improved understanding of police cultural perceptions and stereotyping appear to be important aspects of improving police interaction with victims and co-victims of crime. Responding appropriately to all people according to their needs is not only in line with community expectations but also within the aspect of the duty of care and mission expected of police. Improving police response to victims and co-victims in Australia of any crime type and other calls for help, but especially those involving vulnerable people, will require adjusting some of the behaviours, protocols, responses and values that should be at the core of law enforcement within a democratic policing model.

Responding to the needs of a victim and co-victim on the basis of their individual needs and managing their expectations in a courteous and professional manner supports the aims of police agencies in their efforts to manage crime and disorder within communities. It further enhances the legitimacy and supports the police to function in a democratic society and is an aspect of the police function those police agencies, senior officers and policymakers ignore at their peril.

Despite continuous reviews from Coroners inquiries and high-profile court cases, which have acknowledged concerns regarding the way police treat victims and co-victims, the problem appears to remain. As it is still a nascent area of research, what is known about police and co-victims is limited. Although this article goes beyond anything previously written, it is still only scratching the surface.