• The Issue of Call-Taking and Recording in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case
Posted by Barbara Etter APM on 24 January 2013 | 1 Comments
I refer to yesterday’s blog posting (below) in relation to the handling of doorknocking inquiries by Tasmania Police in the Sue Neill-Fraser matter. In this posting, I deal with the issue of phone calls to the police from members of the public wanting to provide information.
In such matters, members of the public have an expectation that phone calls to the police will be recorded and actioned appropriately, particularly in a high profile murder case where there are numerous appeals via the media for people to come forward. Such calls are important in identifying possible witnesses and informants and in the collection of intelligence relevant to the crime. Such calls, for instance, could have included reports concerning the thefts of dinghies in the area, illegal access to boats in the vicinity, or the sighting of suspicious people, vehicles or boats on the Marieville Esplanade foreshore or in the vicinity of the moored Four Winds yacht. The community rightly expects that there would be an established and effective process and some degree of coordination in the taking, handling and recording of such calls.
Consider that there were numerous requests for members of the public to contact police or Crime Stoppers in articles in The Mercury, following Bob Chappell’s mysterious disappearance on Australia Day 2009. Early media items directed those with information to the Hobart CIB number 6230 2111, an article in March 2009 asked anyone with information to call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, and an article in August, prior to Sue’s arrest, asked people to contact either of the above numbers.
On 25 June 2012, I applied to Tasmania Police under Right to Information (RTI) legislation for various items, including:
Copies of all records kept detailing relevant phone calls to police relating to the matter.
On 25 July 2012 I was advised by Tasmania Police that:
There is no information responsive to this part of your application.
I was very surprised by this response so I then wrote to the Commissioner of Police on 8 August 2012 and asked for an internal review of this issue. In a response dated 23 August 2012, it was stated:
No specific records were maintained of incoming phone calls to the investigation. The practice is for the details of any phone calls to be entered on the PIL [Police Investigation Log] and follow up investigations as required. There are no records relevant to this request other than the PIL.
Having become very familiar with the Police Investigation Log (PIL) and issues in the case, it did appear to me that not all phone calls had been included in the PIL. To ensure that I covered all sources of information, I contacted the CEO of Crime Stoppers via email on 5 September 2012, given that they may well have been an independent body and retained their own records. I put the question to them:
If someone rings in about a current crime operation, how is the information recorded, collated and then forwarded to police? Does Crime Stoppers retain a copy of such records?
On 11 September 2012, I received the following email response:
Crime Stoppers Tasmania itself does not hold any information. It is all held within the Tasmanian Police system. Any access to information which originated from Crime Stoppers Tasmania can only be accessed through a Right to Information application through Tasmania Police.
And, of course, my RTI application to Tasmania Police had not resulted in any phone records at all.
Given the above responses, it therefore seemed that there were no collated records of phone calls from members of the public either within Crime Stoppers or Tasmania Police (other than the information on the PIL).
As indicated above, I was aware of issues, which would have involved phone contact, that did not appear to have been logged on the PIL. Indeed there were very few mentions of actual calls to “Operation Ransack” recorded on the PIL. I then undertook a careful analysis of the 76 page PIL to note how many phone calls were logged. (It is acknowledged, however, that some entries on the PIL had been blacked out). I decided to look at the first three days and the whole operation.
The number of phone calls from members of the public said to have been taken in the first three days, which would be critical to the operation, is unclear as the wording used is “information supplied” or “information from”. But interpreting the information in the best possible light, it would appear that a maximum of 12 phone calls from members of the public wanting to supply information were received in the first 3 days, which seems very low. Moreover, the total number of phone calls from members of the public logged on the PIL up until the period 20 April 2010, when the log ended (a period of 15 months), appears to be around 28.
The lack of any collated information on calls received from the public (and the lack of detailed records on individual calls) regarding the Bob Chappell murder should be of significant concern to the community. Critical information and intelligence may have been received over the phone, particularly in the early days of the investigation, by either Tasmania Police or Crime Stoppers. The lack of information on phone calls is compounded by the lack of proper records from the doorknocking process.
In this era of increased demand for transparency and accountability, and intelligence-led policing, expectations are that important records relating to major crimes would be kept, analysed, cross-referenced and maintained. Moreover, how does one review the scope, effectiveness and fairness of a police murder investigation when critical records appear to be missing?
From Barbara Etter’s website, here
• Doorknocking in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case – An example of sloppy practice by Tasmania Police
Posted by Barbara Etter APM on 23 January 2013 | 0 Comments
There are some clear examples of inadequate record-keeping and investigation in the Sue Neill-Fraser case. For example, I applied under the Right to Information (RTI) legislation on 25 June 2012 for the following:
Copies of all information collected by police conducting doorknocks in the vicinity of Marieville Esplanade following the incident on 27 January 2009 …;
Doorknocking would have been an important strategy in this case given the open nature of the location and the view of the water available to many properties in the near vicinity. In their response dated 25 July 2012, Tasmania Police released 11 pages of notes. The information appears to relate primarily to door knocks of Napoleon Street in Battery Point and not Marieville Esplanade. There is an interesting note on Duty Allocation Sheet D6 Sheet ID 59 dated 2 February 2009 which states:
Further checks need to be done on houses where there was no answer [in capital letters].
There is then a list of 8 houses in Napoleon Street to which this comment appears to apply.
Consider this comment made in relation to one residence in Napoleon Street (number supplied):
Not Home – Worth talking too (sic) as observant re water activities [in capital letters].
There is no information about the outcome of any follow-up. In a response to my letter to the Commissioner of Police seeking an internal review of the RTI response provided to me on this particular issue, a letter from Police dated 23 August 2012 stated:
There is no record of a follow up visit to [the particular address in]… Napoleon Street, as such no record to disclose.
The same letter, in response to my request for an internal review on the issue of doorknocks (amongst other things), further stated:
There are no additional notes available of door knock results other than those provided on 25 July 2012 and on the PIL [Police Investigation Log]. It would appear that some of these follow up visits were not entered on the log, where no relevant information was forthcoming.
An obvious issue, given the information supplied, is the lack of records for those other police officers reported on the Police Investigation Log (PIL) as having undertaken door knocks. For example, page 10 of the PIL states that four other officers were tasked to assist. It appears records were not made of their interactions with residents and that such material was not centrally collated.
In light of the above deficiencies in record keeping, the following statement of the Detective in charge of the investigation at the trial is surprising (Court Transcript p.925):
We canvassed all the residents that we could find at home over a number of days, and we – I’m satisfied that we got residents at every house that was occupied in Marieville Esplanade and Battery Point. I’d estimate out of the numbers there there’s over two hundred people. (emphasis added)
An analysis of the records provided under RTI shows that only around 15 persons (assuming one person per premises) in the vicinity of Marieville Esplanade and Napoleon Street were spoken to as a result of doorknocking. Only three or four of the names of people spoken to appear to be recorded on the documents provided.
20 houses were checked in Napoleon Street, with nine homes being unattended or empty at the time, with “Not Home” recorded against eight of them (and “empty” against one). There is no record of these houses being followed up, despite a notation in early February 2009 acknowledging the importance of doing so.
Four businesses in the vicinity of Napoleon Street were also checked with “No one there” recorded against three of them. Once again, there is no indication of any follow up.
Moreover, there is only two or three records of people having been spoken to who lived on Marieville Esplanade in the doorknocking records provided. Importantly, one woman heard a “mature male voice distressed” between 11.00 pm and 1.30 am on 26/27 January 2009, but no statement was ever taken from her.
PIL entries for 31 January and 1 February 2009 indicate that doorknocking also occurred in Sayer Crescent, Marine Terrace, Clarke Avenue and Trumpeter Street in Battery Point. However, there appear to be no records kept of this aspect of the investigation (as they were not provided under RTI in relation to the initial request nor the request for an internal review on this aspect).
From the documents provided by police under RTI, it would appear that Tasmania Police managed to speak to around 15 people as a result of the doorknocking process. Most of those people are not even identified by name in the records.
There is no indication on the records as to the types of questions that were asked of the residents.
Such practices contrast sharply with the documented procedures for doorknocking or “House-to-House” enquiries in the UK.
The UK Murder Investigation Manual (MIM) (Centrex 2006) dedicates a whole chapter (pp.187-196) on House-to-House (HtoH) Enquiries. The MIM states (at p.188):
Whether undertaken on a small or large scale, HtoH must be conducted thoroughly and recorded accurately. If not carried out properly, HtoH may miss that a particular individual lives or works in the location and so their potential as a suspect or witness cannot be assessed … The success of HtoH depends on investigators taking an organised and methodical approach.
In the UK, a standard questionnaire has even been developed for investigators which can be modified to incorporate the circumstances of a particular offence (p.189). The MIM also acknowledges the need for “Fast-Track House-to-House Enquiries” (at p.193):
Where fast-track HtoH is carried out, officers may simply call at each house and ask if anyone has seen or heard anything, without seeking to fully establish the identities of all those who occupy the premises. Investigators should ensure that all initial enquiries and witness accounts are recorded on the HtoH Initial Enquiries and Witness Account Form, see Appendix 2 of ACPO (2006) Practice Advice on House-to-House Enquiries. This should assist the HtoH coordinator (when one has been formally allocated) to obtain a clear picture of what has and has not been done.
Accurate records must be made of all properties visited and persons seen, including details of properties where there was no reply and of persons who say they have no information to give.
From Barbara Etter’s website, here
• Barbara Etter:
Of further interest is the fact that an RTI request for copies of records of key briefings and TASPOL investigative team meetings, as noted on the Police Investigation Log, revealed that, contrary to best practice, such decisions were recorded on an electronic whiteboard and that no permanent records existed.
Reviewing Murder Investigations – And Room for Improvement in Tasmania
• Court of Criminal Appeals decision. Read for yourself, here
