- Introduction and background
- Part 1: Legal frameworks
- Part 2: Policies and procedures
- Part 3: Comparative indicators
- Summary and recommendations
- References and data sources
Introduction
Reporting period: 2019
Report author(s): Ross Hendy
Summary: The level of lethal force in Australia appears low, but greater data transparency is needed for improved community oversight.
Abstract
The availability of lethal force data by Australian police agencies is mixed. While there is a strong track record of publishing aggregated data on lethal uses of force resulting in the death of a person through the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP), cases of lethal force leading to injury are not rigorously reported. The rate of civilians killed by Australian police officers is 0.025 per 100,000 inhabitants, per annum (calculated from 2001 to 2019 using an independent database of officer-involved shootings). The ratio of civilians killed by gunshot by on-duty LEO agents to the total number of homicides is 37:222.2 (calculated over a 5-year reference period from 2014 to 2019).
Background
Policing in Australia is structured at the federal and state/territory levels. Federal policing focuses on ‘commonwealth crimes’ including cross-jurisdictional (e.g. aviation, cyber, terrorism, etc.) and transnational offences (e.g. child exploitation, drug import/export, human trafficking, overseas offences), whereas state/territory-based policing focuses on domestic crimes (e.g. crimes against the person, road policing, theft, etc.). The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is established under commonwealth statute to enforce ‘commonwealth crimes’ but also provides local policing services for the Australian Central Territory under the ACT Policing division. Each of the other states (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria) have their own state-based police agency (see table below). Policing in the Northern Territory is provided by the Northern Territory Police Force. Like many other Anglo-Saxon common-law countries1, Australia’s primary law-enforcement officer draws their powers from the common law office of constable and specified powers conferred via statute. While all police officers commence their service at the rank of ‘constable’, the promotion to higher ranks (e.g., sergeant, inspector) does not invalidate their ‘constabulary powers’. Many Australian policing agencies have adopted other roles of office with limited or reduced constabulary powers (such as a protective services officer or custody officer), but these personnel are not generally considered to be ‘police officers’.
| Jurisdiction | Agency | Sworn Officers2 |
| Commonwealth | Australian Federal Police (AFP) | 3397 |
| Australian Central Territory | ACT Policing (Australian Federal Police) | |
| New South Wales | New South Wales Police Force | 17,659 |
| Northern Territory | Northern Territory Police Force | 1,607 |
| Queensland | Queensland Police Service | 11,969 |
| South Australia | South Australia Police | 4,735 |
| Tasmania | Tasmania Police | 1,368 |
| Victoria | Victoria Police | 16,159 |
| Western Australia | Western Australia Police Force | 7,357 |
The first two parts of this report relate to conditions as of the end of 2023. Part 1 Legal Frameworks are well established federally and jurisdictionally. Part 2 Policies and Procedures are relatively consistent among the policing jurisdictions. Examples are drawn from New South Wales Police Force, Victoria Police, and the Queensland Police Service as they are the three largest Australian policing agencies. The comparative indicators computed in Part 3 use statistics drawn from 2019 due to data availability. While some other Australian law enforcement officers carry firearms when on duty (such as Australian Border Force officers), this report focuses on the practice of police agencies.
Part 1: Legal Frameworks
Global treaties
| 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | State party | |
| ICCPR Optional Protocol 1 | State party | |
| 1984 Convention Against Torture (CAT) | State party | |
| CAT committee competent to receive individual complaints? | Yes | |
| CAT Optional Protocol 1 | State party | |
Regional treaties
National legal provisions
Relevant constitutional provisions or general laws
Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Rights and protections of human rights are in the Australian Constitution, Commonwealth legislation, and the statutes of states and territories.
Relevant specific national legislation
The use of force by police officers is regulated by legislation that confers powers to ‘constables’ and also legislation that regulates behaviour by ‘a person’.
Constables (defined as a member or a special member of the Australian Federal Police, or a member of a state or territory agency) are afforded the provision to use force against another person under the Australian Crimes Act 1914. Section 3ZC stipulates the general principles of necessity and reasonableness when using force to make an arrest or prevent the escape of an arrested person:
- A person must not, in the course of arresting another person for an offence, use more force, or subject the other person to greater indignity, than is necessary and reasonable to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the other person after the arrest.
- Without limiting the operation of Subsection (1), a constable must not, in the course of arresting a person for an offence:
- do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the constable believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the constable); or
- if the person is attempting to escape arrest by fleeing — do such a thing unless:
- the constable believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the constable); and
- the person has, if practicable, been called on to surrender and the constable believes on reasonable grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any other manner.
Protective Service Officers (PSO) are similarly authorised to use force when arresting within specific legislation. For instance, PSOs employed by the Australian Federal Police are empowered under section 14B of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979:
- A protective service officer must not, in arresting or attempting to arrest a person for an offence or in preventing a person who has been arrested for an offence from escaping, use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is reasonable and necessary in order to make the arrest or prevent the escape of the person.
- Without limiting the generality of Subsection (1), a protective service officer must not, in arresting or attempting to arrest a person for an offence or in preventing a person who has been arrested for an offence from escaping, do an act likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the person unless the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the doing of the act is necessary to protect life or prevent serious injury to the officer or any other person.
Officers of state and territorial police agencies (constables and protective service officers) also derive authority to use force in certain circumstances from provisions afforded to ‘a person’. For instance, Section 462A of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 states:
462A Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence
A person may use such force not disproportionate to the objective as he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent the commission, continuance or completion of an indictable offence or to effect or assist in effecting the lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected of committing any offence.
Example
A police officer or protective services officer uses lethal force on a person to prevent that person from committing an indictable offence that involves causing really serious injury or death because the officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use that force for that purpose. The police officer or protective services officer may do so before that offence is committed.
Similarly, police officers also derive authority to use force in self-defence. For instance, Section 322K of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 states:
- A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
- A person carries out conduct in self-defence if —
- the person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and
- the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.
- This section only applies in the case of murder if the person believes that the conduct is necessary to defend the person or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury.
Other national LEO have powers to use force and carry firearms. For instance, Section 189A of the Australian Customs Act 1901 provides authorised Customers Officers to carry firearms and/or other “approved items of personal defence equipment”. The Act also provides the power for Customs officers (or police) to arrest without warrant (Section 210) if a person is committing or has committed an offence under the Act, and use reasonable force to effect the arrest (Section 210A).
Relevant national regulations
The Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) provides advisory services to all Australian and New Zealand police agencies. Their Use of Force Principles (2023)3 statement provides ‘strategic guidance’ to police agencies and promotes cross-jurisdictional consistency for operational safety. The guidance lists three key principles:
- Authority: the authority for police to use force is derived from law
- Proportionality: police should use no more force than is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the safe and effective execution of their duties
- Accountability: agencies and their members are accountable and responsible for their use of force and must be able to justify their actions at law
Legal interpretation and application
UN or other international body decisions or advisory opinions
Australia adheres to several human rights treaties4. Most notably it ratified the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 19805, and accepted the ICCPR Optional Protocol 1 in 1991 but has not ratified it6.
Regional court judgments
There are no relevant regional human rights treaties, and therefore no regional court judgements. However, Australia is a member of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions.
National court judgments
The 2019 death of Kumanjayi Walker at Yuendumu, near Alice Springs, Northern Territory, brings attention to the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples fatally shot during officer involved shootings in Australia. Walker was shot three times by Northern Territory police officer Constable Zachary Rolfe resulting in an unsuccessful criminal prosecution attempt. The subsequent coronial inquest and failed criminal prosecution of Constable Rolfe signals the gulf between expectations of “Indigenous people that ‘white’ law does not do justice to Aboriginal people, especially when police are involved”7 and the finicalities of common-law conceptions of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness of police use of force. For the community, the death of Walker was a continuation of oppression and trauma associated with the history of Indigenous deaths in custody.
Constable Rolfe was charged with murder, manslaughter, and engaging in a violent act after an investigation centred on the legality of the second and third shots fired. Rolfe’s first shot, after Walker stabbed Rolfe and his partner during an attempted arrest, was not questioned. The prosecution alleged that the second and third shots (fired less than three seconds after the first) resulting in Walker’s death amounted to criminal conduct. Judicial proceedings were sought to establish the legality of the second and third shots. At issue was the peculiarity of the Northern Territory’s Police Administration Act which provides police officers with criminal immunity. Section 148B of the Act states that
A person is not civilly or criminally liable for an act done or omitted to be done by the person in good faith in the exercise of a power or performance of a function under this Act.
The prosecution argued that that first shot was lawful as it related to the arrest of Walker (a prescribed function under the Police Administration Act), but the subsequent two shots were not related to arrest. Unlike other Australian jurisdictions, Northern Territory law does not enable officers to claim a defence under the doctrine of self-defence (cf. Section 322K of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958). Constable Rolfe was later acquitted.
Oversight bodies
Police oversight in Australia is arranged parallel to police agency establishment. While each jurisdiction has an independent oversight agency and/or ombudsman oversight8, the investigation of officer-involved fatal shootings is the responsibility of the jurisdiction’s respective coroner’s court.9 Non-fatal shootings, however, are investigated by the relevant police agency, with IBAC (Victoria) having the power to independently investigate cases relating to excessive use of force and LECC (New South Wales) having oversight of excessive uses of force.
The four layers of oversight involve:
- Internal police agency commands. Police agencies have established commands that review and investigate matters and complaints about police officers that relate to professional standards, officer misconduct or serious misconduct. Investigations include events such as poor service, failure to act, excessive use of force by police officers, and non-fatal and fatal police shootings.
- External integrity agencies. Independent agencies that have a general responsibility to prevent and/or investigate cases of corruption within their jurisdiction. Each agency has responsibilities to monitor internal police agency investigations. For instance, the New South Wales agency (LECC) has the power to monitor serious misconduct investigations at a case level (such as assaults by police officers). The Victorian agency (IBAC) has additional powers to conduct separate investigations of complaints of serious police misconduct.
- Independent ombudsman. These agencies generally have powers to review decisions made by police agencies.
- Coroners courts. These agencies have the primary function of investigating ‘deaths in custody’ which include fatal police officer involved shootings.
The external integrity agencies mentioned above can be summarized as follows:
| Jurisdiction | Integrity bodies | Scope |
| ACT & Commonwealth | National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)10 | Corrupt conduct in the federal public sector. |
| New South Wales | Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC)11 monitors and reviews MSWPF investigations | Serious Misconduct including serious assaults. Power to monitor NSWPF critical incident investigations including a police operation which results in death or serious injury. |
| Northern Territory | ||
| Queensland | Crime and Corruption Commission12 | Power to investigate police misconduct including use of force. Oversight of police investigation of serious police-related incidents including shootings. |
| South Australia | Office for Public Integrity13 | Power to investigate misconduct such as excessive force or assault |
| Tasmania | Integrity Commission Tasmania14 | Power to monitor police misconduct complaints; also has power to investigate misconduct complaints. |
| Victoria | Independent Broad-based anti-corruption commission (IBAC)15 | Power to investigate police misconduct which includes using excessive force.16 |
| Western Australia | Corruption and Crime Commission | Monitor, reviews WA Police investigations into misconduct as well as independently investigating allegations at times. |
Part 2: Policies and Procedures
Data collection and publication by official agencies
| 1. Are the number of deaths following any police use of force | ||
| Collected? | Good, Robust | |
| Accessible through existing publicly available information? | Good, Robust | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | Good, Robust | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | Not applicable | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Not applicable | |
| 2. If published, to what extent can the number of deaths be readily determined from official statistics? | Good, Robust | |
| 3. Is it possible to identify specific individuals killed in official records? | Partial, Medium | |
| 4. Is demographic and other information for the deceased | ||
| Collected? | Unknown | |
| Accessible through existing publicly available information? | Good, Robust | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | Good, Robust | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Partial, Medium | |
| 5. Is demographic and other information on officers in use of force incidents | ||
| Collected? | Good, Robust | |
| Accessible through existing publicly available information? | No Provisions | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | No Provisions | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | No Provisions | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Unknown | |
| 6. Is information on the circumstances | ||
| Collected? | Good, Robust | |
| Publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | Good, Robust | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Partial, Medium | |
| 7. Is information about the type(s) of force used | ||
| Collected? | Good, Robust | |
| Accessible through existing publicly available information? | Partial, Medium | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | Good, Robust | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Partial, Medium | |
Data quality of official sources
| 8. How reliable are the sources used to produce official statistics about deaths? | Good, Robust | |
| 9. Are there mechanisms for internal quality assurance / verification conducted | Good, Robust | |
| 10. Is the methodology for data collection publicised? | Good, Robust | |
| 11. How reliable are the overall figures produced? | Good, Robust | |
Data analysis and lessons learnt
| 12. Do state or police agencies analyse data on the use of lethal force, to prevent future deaths? | Unknown | |
| 13. Is there evidence that state/ police agencies act on the results of their analysis, including applying lessons learnt? | Unknown | |
| 14. Are external bodies are able to reuse data for their own analyses? | Partial, Medium | |
| 15. Do external, non-governmental agencies collect and publish their own statistics on deaths following police use of force? | Good, Robust | |
Investigations by official agencies
| 16. Is there a legal requirement for deaths to be independently investigated? | Partial, Medium | |
| 17. If so, which organisation(s) conduct these investigations? | Jurisdictional coroners. | |
| 18. In the year in question, how many deaths following police use of force have been investigated by the organisation(s) specified in question 17? | Data unavailable | |
| 19. Are close relatives of the victims involved in the investigations? | Partial, Medium | |
| 20. Investigation reports into deaths | ||
| Are publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| Give reasons for the conclusions they have reached? | Partial, Medium | |
| Is this a legal requirement? | Partial, Medium | |
| Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available? | Partial, Medium | |
| If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released? | Partial, Medium | |
| 21. Is there information available on legal proceedings against agents / officials, pursuant to deaths? | Partial, Medium | |
| 22. Is there information available on legal proceedings against state agencies, pursuant to deaths? | No Provisions | |
| 23. Is there information available on disciplinary proceedings against agents/ officials, pursuant to deaths? | Partial, Medium | |
| 24. Number of prosecutions against agents / officials involved in the last ten years? | Data unavailable | |
| 25. Number of convictions against agents / officials involved in the last ten years? | Data unavailable | |
| 26. Number of prosecutions against agencies involved in the last ten years? | Data unavailable | |
| 27. Number of convictions against agencies involved in the last ten years? | Data unavailable | |
| 28. Number of cases in which states have been found to have breached human rights law on the use of lethal force? | Data unavailable | |
Detailed elaboration
Data collection and publication by official agencies
Policies and procedures are relatively consistent among the policing jurisdictions. Examples are drawn from the three largest Australian policing agencies: The New South Wales Police Force, Victoria Police, and Queensland Police Service.
Official statistics regarding deaths in custody are sourced directly from coronial findings and published via the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP). The NDICP was established in 1980 by the Australian Institute of Criminology (an Australian government federal agency, not an independent or academic body) which publishes aggregated data to the wider public sourced from case-level incident data from each Australian state/territory-based jurisdictional coronial body. This reporting mechanism reflects the general decentralised state/territory-based approach to policing in Australia. In 1994 the Australasian Police Ministers Council17 adopted an expanded definition of police custody (category 1) to include deaths in institutional settings and police operations where officers were in close contact with the deceased and police-related custody (category 2) where deaths occurred during custody-related situations where officers did not have close contact or control over the deceased18.
Coronial data is not published exhaustively. While coroners must investigate such deaths reported in their jurisdiction, they are not required to make their findings publicly available19. Recent research has found that some family members experience barriers to the process and may feel excluded from the process as there are no provisions to provide legal representation during inquests20. In most cases, coroners will release findings through public internet sites.
The NDICP database21 is the main public source of data relating to fatal police shootings22. While the NDICP is concerned with the wider problem of ‘deaths in custody’, their annual report provides sufficient information to glean deaths due to the discharge of police firearms (e.g. see table E26 in the 2021–22 annual report). The NDICP database is populated using data captured from state and territory coroner inquests and is sourced from the National Coronial Information System database23. NCIS is a data repository for sharing information on ‘reportable deaths’ reported to coroners in Australia and New Zealand24. While some have criticised the AIC’s track record regarding reporting of data25, more recent developments have included the provision of an interactive dashboard on the AIC website.
Concerning the evaluation of specific aspects of data collection and publication:
1/2. Information on deaths: Rated as Good / Robust because:
- Data relating to deaths by police firearms is readily shared between state and federal agencies.
- There is a tradition of publishing summary reports for public review.
- The frequency of officer involved shootings is readily available but may be obscured by the unique reporting ‘death in custody’ measure.
3. Identification of persons shot: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Identifying details of the person shot are available in publicly published coronial reports (unless redacted).
- Identifying information is not made available from NDICP outputs.
- Coroners are not required to make all inquiry reports publicly accessible.
4. Demographic information available: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- While some demographic data is collected and populated to the NCIS, researchers have noted that in many cases the measure of a person’s Indigenous status is not reported. It is noted that the NDICP are remediating such omissions.
- Some demographic data is reported in aggregated form.
5/6. Use of force incidents: Rated as No Provisions because:
- Non-fatal uses of force are not captured in the Death In Custody system as reporting is limited to fatal uses of force.
- Case level data is not publicly available.
- Aggregated level data may be publicly available via freedom of information requests.
7. Information about type(s) of force used: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Data about other uses of force may be available from coronial inquest reports when there has been a death.
Data quality of official sources
Methodology
As noted, the NDICP relies on a sequence of agency self-reporting administrative data for the database population. The information collected and reported is primarily for the coronial system to determine the cause, method and manner of death of a person ‘in custody’. This process follows this sequence:
- Jurisdictional police agency involved in shooting
- Respective jurisdictional coronial agency
- National Coronial Information System (closed access)
- National Deaths in Custody Program, Australian Institute of Criminology
- NDICP database and reports (open access)
While the NDICP report their method and data collection verification processes26, quarterly and end of year cross-referencing with coronial findings and other sources are reliant on third-party data which can result in variation of statistics between reports.
Out-of-scope deaths
NDICP data excludes persons shot who are not ‘in custody’ or ‘being taken into custody’. Consequently, data on police shootings where someone is not ‘being taken into custody’ or cases involving someone in the process of committing suicide, or the death of an ‘innocent bystander’ are not captured.
Reliability
A comparison of the NDICP dataset with an independently collected dataset27 revealed a discrepancy of eight cases missing during the reference period of 30 years July 1989 to June 2019 (5% of the independent dataset). It is not possible to determine the reason for the discrepancy as the NDICP does not publish case-level data. A comparison of a more recent set of reference data (July 2014 to June 2019) identified one case of omitted data (2.7% of the independent dataset).
| Period | Database source | Deaths |
| Jul 1989 – Jun 2019 | AIC NDICP dataset28 | 148 |
| Independent dataset | 156 | |
| Jul 2014 – Jun 2019 | AIC NDICP dataset29 | 36 |
| Independent dataset | 37 |
There has been some criticism that sufficient detail is not comprehensively reported by coroners. For instance, Walsh and Counter discovered that 71% of cases made no reference to the person’s Indigenous status30, although this problem has been addressed by the AIC verifying cases from 2020 onwards with data from the Australian Birth, Deaths and Marriages database31. Similarly, AIC note that they are not able to compute the rate of deaths in police custody as there are no reliable data sources for the count of people coming into custody or those who come into contact with police32.
8–11: Rated as Good / Robust because:
- Data sources are generally reliable.
- NDICP conduct regular (6-monthly) quality assurance checks to verify any changes to data in the NCIS.
- NDICP methodology is publicly available.
- NDICP data is reliable / minor differences are identified in NDICP dataset when compared to an independent dataset.
Data analysis and lessons learned
In general terms, Australian police agencies do not systematically publish information related to police use of force, deaths in custody, or other police-related fatalities. This may well be the case because of NDICP’s reporting and analysis remit. As such, it is not possible to definitively comment on the internal data analysis and lessons learnt practices of these agencies. There is anecdotal evidence that some Australian agencies do conduct internal research analysis to inform operational practice. Conversations with ANZPAA and correspondence between this author and Victoria Police’s research unit confirm that such work is undertaken33.
However, there is a track record of thematic or systemic reviews of lethal uses of force by specific police agencies or oversight bodies in response to occasional public controversies. The 1994 report by Task Force Victor34 in Victoria became an influential driving force for a widespread overhaul of training and operational responses to persons experiencing mental-health-related episodes or having mental-health-related histories35. Queensland Police Service’s Project Lighthouse report (1996) and their subsequent Violent Confrontations Review (2016)36 demonstrate how some agencies use an evidence base and research insights to inform operational practice. The 31 recommendations made in the Violent Confrontations Review include recommendations to improve information sharing and operational relationships with mental health services, refine policies and procedures, and refine operational training. Victoria’s Office of Police Integrity (the jurisdictional oversight body from 2004 to 201337) report on fatal officer-involved shootings arose from the review of six cases from January 2003 and identified issues including those relating to the training of police officers38. Similarly, the New South Wales Police’s Integrity Commission (the jurisdictional oversight body from 1996 to 201739) Project Harlequin report (2017) called for improved internal reporting, particularly from a command and control perspective. Revealingly, the report noted that none of the sampled “27 region commander reports gave consideration to broader lessons to be learnt from the incident, or proposed improvements to police systems, policies, practices and/or training as required by the guidelines”40.
12. Agency use of data for lessons learnt: Rated as Unknown because:
- There is some anecdotal evidence that some agencies conduct internal reviews to develop aggregated databases for evidence-based improvements.
- There is evidence to suggest that some internal case-by-case analyses omit opportunities for practice and policy improvement.
13. Application of lessons learnt: Rated as Unknown because:
- There is some historical evidence of the successful application of lessons learnt (e.g. Project Beacon) to prevent further harm.
- There is no evidence to confirm or negate contemporary practice.
14. External body access to data: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Some external bodies can access data from agencies (such as oversight bodies) but there is a track record of some agencies refusing to release data for external analysis.
15. External agency data collection: Rated as Good because:
- There is evidence of a track record of NGOs and research bodies collecting their own data on police use of force.
Investigations by official agencies
Generally, Australian police agencies investigate all officer-involved shootings within their jurisdiction. Investigations will often include a criminal investigation to consider breaches of law, and a professional standards investigation (akin to an internal affairs investigation) to consider breaches of policy or officer conduct, both of which are then monitored by the jurisdictional police or government integrity agency. As fatal officer-involved shootings are investigated by the jurisdictional police agency on behalf of the coroner (because coronial bodies do not have independent investigatory staff), there is the potential for a perceived and actual conflict of interest. The prosecution of Northern Territory Police Constable Zachary Rolfe stands as an outlier in this regard.
- Internal investigation. Police commands (i.e. divisions) review and investigate professional standards matters and complaints about police officers that relate to officer misconduct or serious misconduct. Investigations include events such as poor service, failure to act, or excessive uses of force by police officers.
- Independent integrity investigation and oversight. Independent agencies that have a general responsibility to prevent and/or investigate cases of corruption within their jurisdiction. Each agency has responsibilities to monitor internal police agency investigations. For instance, the New South Wales agency has the power to monitor serious misconduct investigations at case level (such as assaults by police officers). The Victorian agency (IBAC) has additional powers to conduct separate investigations into complaints of serious police misconduct.
- Independent ombudsman. These agencies generally have powers to review decisions made by police agencies.
Police agencies are the lead investigatory body for non-fatal officer-involved shootings. Non-fatal shootings are not within the jurisdiction of the coronial system which presents a problem for transparency. Moreover, as there is no national coordinating agency to publicly investigate and review fatal and non-fatal shootings, opportunities for transparent oversight and policy-informed continuous improvement are diminished. In Victoria, the oversight body has the power to independently investigate incidents whereas in New South Wales the oversight body has the power to monitor police investigations.
16. Independent investigation: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Deaths resulting from officer-involved shootings are investigated by the jurisdictional coroner.
- Jurisdictional police agencies investigate on behalf of the coroner.
18. Investigations underway: Rated as Unknown because:
- Not all coronial reports are made public.
- Data is promulgated through NCIS to NDICP at the completion of an inquest.
19. Family involvement: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Research indicates that families routinely attend coronial inquests, but their involvement is limited due to a lack of resourcing for legal representation41
.
21. Investigation reports: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- In most cases, coronial inquest judgements are publicly available via the respective coronial website. Some cases are not publicly available.
Legal proceedings, prosecutions and convictions
22. Legal proceedings against individual police officers: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Cases involving the prosecution of officers are of high public interest and achieve media attention.
- There is no consolidated reporting of prosecutions of police officers.
23A. Proceedings against police agencies: Rated as No Provisions because:
- There is no known recent data on such proceedings.
23B. Disciplinary proceedings against individual police officers: Rated as Partial / Medium because:
- Oversight bodies regularly report on the quantity of disciplinary proceedings conducted within the sphere of influence. Names and circumstances are not systematically reported.
24–28. Cases: Rated as Unknown because:
- No data is systematically reported.
Non-official sources
The lack of other non-official databases of police officer-involved shootings and deaths in custody is probably due to the perceived authenticity of NDICP reporting. On the one hand, the absence of an established alternative database, and the frequent use of the NDICP database by academic researchers and the news media, provide a basic level of endorsement and assurance that this official reporting system is robust.
Its accuracy can be confirmed, in part, by our independent database of fatal and non-fatal injurious officer-involved shootings42. This database uses news media reports as its primary source and was verified through administrative data and other academic sources. The comparison of the independent dataset with official data (see Section B) found a discrepancy of 8 cases of fatal police shootings between July 1989 and June 2019.
On the other hand, the lack of an ‘official’ alternative, such as the UK’s Inquest database43 populated through non-governmental casework and monitoring, creates risks for under-reporting through methodological discrepancies (interpretation of the cause of death) and timeliness of reporting (that reporting relies on the completion of coronial inquests).
Part 3: Comparative indicators
| I-1a. CK: Number of civilians killed by law enforcement agents on duty, by gunshot | 9 |
| I-1b. CKt: Number of civilians killed by law enforcement agents, regardless of means and whether or not on duty | Data unavailable |
| I-1c. CW: Number of civilians wounded by law enforcement agents on duty, by gunshot | 14 |
| I-1d. CWt: Number of civilians wounded by law enforcement agents, whether or not on duty and regardless of means | Data unavailable |
| I-2. CK per 100000 inhabitants | 0.035 |
| I-3. CK per 1000 law enforcement agents | 0.146 |
| I-4. CK per 1000 arrests | Data unavailable |
| I-5. CK per 1000 weapons seized | Da |
| I-6. AK: Number of law enforcement officers unlawfully killed on duty by firearm | 0 |
| I-6b. AKt: Number of law enforcement officers unlawfully killed, whether or not on duty and regardless of means | 1 |
| I-7. AK per 1000 agents | 0 |
| A1. Percentage of homicides due to state intervention | Data unavailable |
| A2. Ratio between CK and AK | Data unavailable |
| A3. Civilian lethality index: Ratio between CK and CW | Data unavailable |
| A4. Lethality ratio: Ratio between Civilian lethality index and law enforcement agents lethality index | Data unavailable |
| A5. Average number of civilians killed by intentional gunshot, per incident | Data unavailable |
The table below provides comparative indicators for deaths from 2001 to 2019.
Data is drawn from the author’s officer-involved shooting database44 and Hine and Carey’s analysis of deaths of on-duty police officers in Australia45. As with many of the indicators noted in this report, official country-level data is not collected or published. Data from Hine and Carey is sourced from the interactive Honour roll published on the National Police Memorial internet site46.
The comparative indicators computed in this section use statistics drawn from 2019 where data is available. While some other Australian law enforcement officers carry firearms when on duty (such as Australian Border Force officers), this report focuses on the practice of police agencies.
| Period: | 2001–2019 (inclusive) | 2019 (July 2018–June 2019) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | Aggregate count | Average count per year | count |
| I-1a. Civilians killed (CK) Number of civilians killed by LE agents on duty by gunshot49 | 99 | 5.5 | 9 |
| I-1b. Total number of civilians killed by public security agents, regardless of means and whether on or off-duty (CKt): Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| I-1c. (CW) Number of civilians wounded by gunshots by LE agents on duty 50 | 138 | 7.667 | 14 |
| I-1d. Total number of civilians wounded by public security agents, regardless of means and whether on or off-duty (CWt): Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| I-2. CK per 100,000 inhabitants 51 | 0.445 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| I-3. CK per 1000 law enforcement agents 52 | 1.608 | 0.089 | 0.146 |
| I-4. CK per 1000 arrests: Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| I-5. CK per 1000 weapons (firearms) seized: Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| I-6. Number of LE agents killed on duty by firearm (homicides only, excluding suicides and accidents) (AK)53 | 12 | 0.667 | 0 |
| I-6b. Total number of LE agents killed, regardless of means and whether on or off-duty54 | 39 | 3.25 | 1 |
| 1.7. Number of LE agents killed on duty by firearm (attempted homicides only, excluding suicides and accidents) per 1000 agents (AK per 1000 agents)55 | 0.195 | 0.011 | 0 |
| A-1. % homicides due to state intervention: Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| A-2. Ratio between CK and AK: Limited data | 33:4 | – | – |
| A-3. Civilian lethality index. Ratio between CK and CW: Limited data | 33:46 | – | – |
| A-4. Lethality ratio. Ratio between Civilian lethality index and LE agents lethality index: Data unavailable | – | – | – |
| A-5. Average of civilians killed by intentional gunshot per incident: Data unavailable | – | – | – |
Summary and recommendations
The decentralised Australian policing system creates challenges for developing a nationwide picture of fatal police officer-involved shootings. While deaths in custody and fatal police officer-involved shootings are reported through AIC’s NDICP, there can often be a lag between the occurrence of a fatality and its official report. The lack of reporting of deaths in custody and/or fatalities associated with police-citizen interaction is a significant omission for police agencies within a highly democratic-aligned society. By comparison, New Zealand Police is the exemplar with open reporting of (1) deaths in police custody in their 2023 Annual Report56 and (2) police firearm usage in their newly established Environmental and Response Annual Report 2021.57 While New Zealand is advantaged with a single national police agency, their approach to data availability does not impinge oversight of such events by the courts, coroner, or the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
The following recommendations are made to improve data transparency, encourage community involvement in coronial inquests, and support the adoption of a continuous improvement environment:
- Australian police agencies to report deaths in custody and fatal police encounters in their annual reporting to increase transparency about fatal police-citizen encounters and overcome time lags associated with coronial inquests.
- Australian police agencies to report the use of near-fatal force in their annual reporting. Measures should include presentations of firearms, threats to shoot, and firearm discharges regardless of outcome.
- Australian police agencies to conduct policy, practice, and training reviews at regular periods (e.g., 5 years) so that policy, practice, and training may benefit from regular lessons-learnt insights. Scheduled reviews should pre-empt lessons learned from ad-hoc reviews ordered in response to critical trends (e.g., Project Beacon).
- Coronial inquests to improve family and community involvement with increased funding for legal representation. Increased participation provides improved outcomes for family members and builds police legitimacy in the community.
- Australian oversight bodies and police agencies to report aggregated counts of prosecutions and convictions of officers involved in the use of fatal force in annual reporting.
References, data sources and downloads
1 Ross Hendy (2021). Policing in New Zealand. In: Jospeter Mbuba (Ed.), Global Perspectives of Policing and Law Enforcement. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 245–63.
2 The count of sworn officers is drawn from agency annual reports and is accurate of 30 June 2022 except for Queensland Police which is accurate of 30 June 2017.
3 See https://www.anzpaa.org.au/ArticleDocuments/2337/Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand%20Use%20of%20Force%20Principles%20-%20PDF%20for%20publication%202023%20(final).PDF.aspx
4 See https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=9&Lang=EN
5 Ratified in 1980 but not adopted into domestic law. See Note 2.6 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Freedomofreligion/Interim_Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024110%2F25199#:~:text=Despite%20signing%20the%20ICCPR%20in,adopted%20it%20into%20domestic%20law.
6 Accepted 1991, but not yet ratified.
7 Stephen Gray (2022). Police Immunity from Criminal Liability: The High Court and the Zachary Rolfe Murder Trial. Alternative law journal, 47(2):137–42; p. 137.
8 Garth Den Heyer & Alan Beckley (2013). Police Independent Oversight in Australia and New Zealand. Police Practice and Research, 14(2):130–43.
9 T. Walsh & A. Counter (2019). Deaths in Custody in Australia: A Quantitative Analysis of Coroners’ Reports. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(2):143–63.
10 See https://www.nacc.gov.au/reporting-and-investigating-corruption/report-corrupt-conduct
11 See https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/complaints
12 See https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/
13 See https://www.publicintegrity.sa.gov.au
14 See https://www.integrity.tas.gov.au/home
15 See https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au
16 See https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/what-police-misconduct
17 See https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/committees-and-councils/police-ministers-council
18 J. Joudo (2006). Deaths in Custody in Australia 1990-2004. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 309 (Apr 2006):1–6.
19 T. Walsh & A. Counter (2019). Deaths in Custody in Australia: A Quantitative Analysis of Coroners’ Reports. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(2):143–63.
20 T. Walsh, E. Alagappan, and L. Cornwell (2022). Coroners’ Perspectives on Deaths in Custody in Australia. International Journal of Law Crime and Justice, 71:10.
21 See https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/deaths-custody-australia.
22 The Australian Institute of Criminology is a federally funded government agency that describes itself as “Australia’s national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice”. It is part of the Attorney-General’s Portfolio and accountable to the Attorney-General. See https://www.aic.gov.au.
23 See https://www.ncis.org.au
24 National Coronial Information System (2022). NCIS Annual Report. Melbourne: National Coronial Information System.
25 T. Walsh & A. Counter (2019). Deaths in Custody in Australia: A Quantitative Analysis of Coroners’ Reports. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(2):143–63.
26 Merran Mcalister and Samantha Bricknell (2022). Deaths in Custody in Australia 2021–22. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
27 Ross Hendy and Kristen Davis (2023). Fatal and Non-Fatal Police Officer-Involved Shootings in Australia.
28 Merran Mcalister and Samantha Bricknell (2022). Deaths in Custody in Australia 2021–22. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Table E29
29 ibid.
30 T. Walsh & A. Counter (2019). Deaths in Custody in Australia: A Quantitative Analysis of Coroners’ Reports. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(2):143–63.
31 Merran Mcalister and Samantha Bricknell (2022). Deaths in Custody in Australia 2021–22. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
32 Ibid.
33 David Ballek (2021). Re: RCC 1008 Policing Shootings in Australia and New Zealand (1970–2020). Docklands, VIC: Victoria Police, 1.
34 Task Force Victor (1994). Police Shootings : A Question of Balance. Melbourne.
35 Jessica Saligari and Richard Evans (2016). Beacon of Hope? Lessons Learned from Efforts to Reduce Civilian Deaths from Police Shootings in an Australian State. Journal of urban health, 93(1):78–88.
36 Queensland Police Service (2016). QPS Violent Confrontations Review’. Brisbane: Queensland Police Service.
37 See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Police_Integrity
38 Office of Police Integrity Victoria (2005). Review of Fatal Shootings by Victoria Police. Melbourne: Office of Police Integrity Victoria.
39 See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Integrity_Commission
40 Police Integrity Commission (2017). Project Harlequin. Audit of the NSW Police Force Investigations into 83 Critical Incidents Occurring between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2012. Research and Prevention Publication. Sydney: Police Integrity Commission, at p. xiii.
41 T. Walsh, E. Alagappan, and L. Cornwell (2022). Coroners’ Perspectives on Deaths in Custody in Australia. International Journal of Law Crime and Justice, 71:10.
42 Ross Hendy and Kristen Davis (2023). Fatal and Non-Fatal Police Officer-Involved Shootings in Australia.
43 See https://www.inquest.org.uk/fatal-police-shootings
44 Ross Hendy and Kristen Davis (2023). Fatal and Non-Fatal Police Officer-Involved Shootings in Australia.
45 Kelly A. Hine and Samantha Carey (2021). The Current Nature of Police Officer Fatalities in Australia and Opportunities for Prevention. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(2):191–210.
46 See https://npm.org.au/honour-roll/
47 Kelly A. Hine and Samantha Carey (2021). The Current Nature of Police Officer Fatalities in Australia and Opportunities for Prevention. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(2):191–210.
48 Ross Hendy and Kristen Davis (2023). Fatal and Non-Fatal Police Officer-Involved Shootings in Australia.
49 ibid.
50 ibid.
51 Calculated using an average Australian population between 2001 and 2019; total count = (99 22,238,505) 100,000; rate per annum = ((99 18) 22,238,505) 100,000.
52 Total count = (99 61,543) 1000; rate per annum = ((99 18) 61,543) 1000.
53 Kelly A. Hine and Samantha Carey (2021). The Current Nature of Police Officer Fatalities in Australia and Opportunities for Prevention. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(2):191–210.
54 ibid.
55 ibid. Total count = (12 61,543) 1000; rate per annum = (12 18) 61,543) 1000. calculated on the basis of: 12 persons / 18 = 0.6667 p.a., (0.6667 / 61,543) * 1000 = 0.010
56 New Zealand Police (2023). Annual Report 30 June 2023. Wellington: New Zealand Police.
57 New Zealand Police (2023). Environment and Response Annual Report 2021. Wellington: New Zealand Police.