Abstract
Interacting with victims and co-victims of crime and other calls for help are a daily routine for police forces, and there have been many attempts to improve this vital function of policing in modern democratic societies. However, some groups in Australia remain unconvinced by police actions when they report incidents and are suspicious of the response they receive. This article provides insights concerning the way in which the police deal with victims and co-victims in Australia, utilizing a particular focus on high-profile sections of the community. These examples highlight some of the issues; the article concludes by suggesting that policing in Australia needs to be refocused to ensure officers understand the important role victims and co-victims play in reducing and detecting criminality, whilst also supporting the legitimization of the police role.
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. Age: Children and young people may not be able to fully comprehend or have developed the capacity or the knowledge to understand the wider implications of their involvement. Intellectual, developmental and learning disabilities: Disability present from an early age either from genetic conditions or early brain injury (e.g., meningitis) or illness or nutrition of the mother during pregnancy (e.g., rubella, foetal alcohol syndrome) which affect the ability to learn and develop intellectual functioning. Mental illness or emotional disorder: Episodes of mental ill health which seriously affects mood (bipolar disorder and depressive illness), grief and loss reactions, depression, thought disorder and difficulties with complex reasoning. Older age and frailty: Disorders of older age: memory loss and inability to cope with complex decision-making; sensory and mobility problems which prevent new information from being accessed and new learning. Physical disability: Problems with mobility and muscle movement (e.g., paralysis and cerebral palsy), which do not generally affect psychological or intellectual functioning. Physical or psychological abuse and trauma: Victims of abuse, torture, rape, slavery, forced labour, attempted murder, forced marriage, human trafficking or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. Sensory impairment: Vision or hearing loss which prevents interaction with others and difficulties in accessing information.
297
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.
Missing Persons
Annually, statistics show that between 38,000 (Australian Federal Police, 2020) and 53,000 people are reported missing in Australia. 542 Of these, vulnerable groups, including mentally ill individuals, those with intellectual or physical disabilities, children or people who are chronic drug users, are significant. 553 Statistics reveal that around 64% of reports are resolved within 24 hours, with a further 86% resolved within a week, and almost all (99%) are resolved within a year. 564
Missing person demographics are made up of 51% males and 49% females, with almost half (49%) of these missing persons being teenagers aged between 13 and 17 years. 575
While these statistics prove that police have had excellent success in discovering the location of the missing person, a common complaint from co-victims is that their concerns for the missing individual were not taken seriously, despite reporting their absence being out of character. The Missing Persons Advocacy Network states that the reasons for a disappearance vary widely, ‘… misadventure, mental health, abduction, dementia, migration, conflict and more. Approximately 85% of cases in Australia pertain to mental health. About 1–2% are criminal in nature’ (2022, p. 1). Sometimes the reporters of the missing person complain that the police are suggest that the missing person is a capable adult, irrespective of their mental illness, and will return on their own when they are ready.
Co-victims expect the police to regard their reports seriously, despite any perception the police may have regarding the character of the missing person. Previously, there have been days or even weeks between the reports made to police and the beginning of their investigation, especially if they are an adult with no known or obvious vulnerabilities. The expectation of the reporting party or co-victims may be driven by popular culture, television programmes or fictional novels where the police will locate the missing person, using every resource available with immediate effect, returning the missing person home quickly and unharmed.
However, this is very often not the case, and relative expectations need to be considered and managed at this point. The same can be said for family and domestic violence, where police are often only aware of the victims when neighbours make a report, when the victim requires medical attention, or when there is a fatal outcome.
Sexual, Family and Domestic Violence
Research worldwide suggests that sexual offences are one of the most under-reported crimes.
586
,
597
The World Health Organisation (2018)
608
reported that in countries that publish crime data, most showed an increase in the reporting of sexual offences. Reasons for the increase are possibly:
The increase in public discussion related to sexual violence and the use of social media. There has been a cultural shift emphasizing the role of the bystander in crimes by such statements
619
as ‘the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.’ More sexual offences are occurring. New laws and policies, requiring mandatory reporting and recording, have come into effect.
620
Victims are more comfortable coming forward to law enforcement, medical specialists, psychologists or women’s outreach centres.
631
Sexual offending has a high impact and prevalence in Australia. Sexual assault is the fourth most serious crime by volume of victims, with 24,957 individuals affected in 2017—it is the most serious offence against a person by victim volume. 642 In the category of Non-assaultive Sexual Offences, 53% of women and 25% of men surveyed in a 2016 study had experienced sexual offending in their lifetime. 653 According to ABS statistics, between 2016 and 2017, there was an 8% increase in the number of victims recorded for sexual assault—this can be contrasted with most other forms of serious crime against the person, which all fell at significant rates. 675 This demonstrates the high, and increasing, reported rates of sexual crime in Australia.
Sexual crimes are linked to other social and individual intangible costs, such as mental illness, personal suffering, early mortality and physical harm, for victims. 664 Sexual crimes are also closely linked to family and domestic violence, which is the leading cause of death of women aged 15–44 years in Australia, 675 as well as intimate partner violence is a leading contributor to illness, disability and premature death for women aged 18–44. 686 KPMG 697 reported that violence against women costs Australia an estimated $22 billion each year. Furthermore, family and domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women and their children as many run away from their family homes to escape the violence.
Ting et al.
708
noted that reporting had increased over time and they revealed for the first time in Rough justice: How police are failing survivors of sexual assault that between the decade 2001 and 2017, Australia’s state and territory police received 140,000 sexual assault complaints. From this number:
50,800 remain unsolved 42,600 had an arrest, formal caution or summons made 34,000 were resolved with no arrest made 18,000 complaints were withdrawn 12,000 were rejected by police.
These statistics do not fully convey the extent of the actual damage as victimization has a ‘ripple out effect’, spreading the damage further in waves with whom they have intimate contact. These intimates, such as family or friends, can be co-victims. In relation to sexual offences, many co-victims are male, because the majority of primary victims of sexual assaults are female.
The rise in reporting means that police are involved in the investigation of sex offences to a much greater degree than previously. The numbers listed above lead to situations where the victims do not feel being trusted, are disappointed with police interaction or that they have not had their expectations managed appropriately. For half of the complaints, these issues led to the decision to withdraw from the process and the inevitable cessation of investigations, resulting in the alleged perpetrator remaining free to continue with their criminal behaviour. 719
Indigenous People and Police
Indigenous people share a complex, inequitable and sometimes prejudiced relationship with police. 720 , 731 They have a long history of mistrust, racism, over-policing and overt bias. 742 , 753 Police, as part of their work, face high levels of violence and abuse from within some Indigenous communities, which are said to be closely linked to chronic social issues, such as alcohol or drug (ab)use, antisocial behaviours, chronic health problems, community dysfunction, disempowerment, marginalization and poverty. 764 , 775 , 786
The impact of this on co-victims is that it reinforces the gap between Indigenous peoples and the police. A lack of sensitivity, training and care for not only the victims but co-victims reinforces the notion that when it comes to Indigenous people, the police do not put them as a priority even when it means a person has lost their life. 797
Mental Illness
The Richmond Report 808 into Health Services for the Psychiatrically Ill and Developmentally Disabled was responsible for moving people who lived in institutionalized care to community-based care homes with the intention of a more positive lifestyle, stability and a chance to interact within a functional community. One of the unintended consequences of this change, due in part to a lack of government funding, was that some people living with mental illness ended up in the community with little to no safeguards. Community-based networks and systems did not receive sufficient funding and are unable to fully engage with all clients.
Emergency departments, medical centres, crisis lines, mental health teams and other agencies are limited in what they can offer and achieve. Many appear to work in silos and are not well integrated with each other to support their clients. Hospital admissions to specialist psychiatric beds and services are now available for only those in acute crisis, and, even then, for limited periods. 819 These factors contribute to the likelihood of people with mental illness coming into contact with the police.
Research conducted by Laniyonu and Goff 820 found that individuals suffering serious mental health episodes are at a significantly elevated risk of facing injury due to police use of force than the general public. When police reach the scene of an incident, they may not be aware that the individual they have been called to deal with has a mental illness. 831 , 842 As noted in the introduction of this article, people with mental health problems are often misunderstood and their behaviours can be misjudged as antagonistic, belligerent or resisting arrest. 853 However, to better serve victims and co-victims, police need to ignore commonly accepted myths, stereotypes often popularized by the media that frequently link violent behaviour and mental illness, and bias. 864
Fatal incidents between police and vulnerable people not only highlight the lack of training and understanding in terms of mental health by the police but also demonstrate significant issues that are prevalent in how police interact with people from the CALD communities that have mental health disorders. 875
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.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.