Five hours of alleged neglect in a Maitland Police cell and a woman lay dead

Maitland Police Station. Image: The Sydney Morning Herald

There is absolutely no excuse for any intoxicated person dying whilst in police custody.

The mother of four, a Wiradjuri woman, was placed in a cell alone at about 1am and checked on at 6am. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 August 2016]

If true, the reported five hour gap between security checks by a detention officer should be called for what it is – neglect of the safety and physical wellbeing of a vulnerable person.

Aboriginal Legal Service, excerpt from media release, 17 August 2016:

NSW legislation may need to be reviewed

Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT (ALS) is concerned about the care of intoxicated persons in police holding cells following the tragic death of an Aboriginal woman in police cell custody on 19 July 2016.

Rebecca Maher, 36, died in police cell custody in Maitland Police Station following her detainment by police for apparent intoxification.

Although earlier reports suggested Rebecca Maher was arrested, police media reports state Rebecca Maher was detained for intoxification.

A police media statement says Ms Maher had ‘appeared intoxicated’ and was placed in a holding cell, and ‘about 6am the woman was found deceased.’

Gary Oliver, CEO of ALS says the legislation relating to the detention of intoxicated persons may need review.

“We understand Rebecca Maher had been held in a holding cell for some hours before she was found to be deceased.

“We have many questions about what happened that night, and that includes what continuing avenues the police took to find a responsible person as guided by the legislation, and during that time, what level of care was provided to Rebecca Maher during those 5-6 hours while held by police.

“Putting an intoxicated person into a cell places enormous responsibility on the police to carefully manage the health and welfare of that person until which time they do not appear to be intoxicated and can be released.

“Police notification using the ALS Custody Notification Service (CNS) applies if police have arrested a person for an alleged offence.

“Police are currently not required to call the CNS when they have detained someone who appears to be intoxicated for the sole purpose of their own welfare.

“Police however are required to do a number of other things, including giving the person an opportunity to contact a responsible person, or continually seeking to put the person into the care of a responsible person willing to undertake the care of the intoxicated person, such as a family member, a friend, a member of staff of a government or non-government organisation, or a facility providing welfare or alcohol or other drug rehabilitation services.

“If a responsible person cannot be found, or if the person is not willing to go into the care of the responsible person, or if it is impracticable to transport the person to a responsible person or to their home, police may hold the person at the Station as a temporary measure until that person is seen not to be intoxicated.

“Under the legislation, if the intoxicated person is kept at the station, they have to be kept in a separate part of the station, they are not to be detained in a cell unless it is necessary or impracticable to lock up the person elsewhere, and they have to be given food, drink, bedding and blankets, appropriate to their needs.

“The person must be released as soon as they stop being intoxicated, or appear to not be seriously affected.

“If an intoxicated person is held but not charged, under existing legislation, there is no requirement to call the CNS.

“This may well be a law reform issue. A vulnerable person in custody needs protection.

“A notification system such as the CNS can help trigger protective processes, such as health and welfare checks.

“However, the legislation already requires police to enact certain pathways to ensure the care of the intoxicated person.

“Did police enact those pathways?

“Does the legislation relating to the detention and notification of intoxicated persons need to be reviewed?

“These are some of our questions.

“It is the 25th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody this year, and so many recommendations have still not been implemented, yet they remain astutely relevant.

“The lessons for the care of Aboriginal people in custody are already written. Let’s use them.”

 NSW Police Force, media release, 19 July 2016:

Critical incident - Maitland

A critical incident has been launched after a woman died while in custody at Maitland Police Station.

About 12.45am (Tuesday 19 July 2016), police located and detained a 36-year-old woman who appeared intoxicated, walking along Wollumbi Road, Cessnock.

The woman was transported by police to Maitland Police Station and placed in a holding cell.

About 6am the woman was found deceased.

A Critical Incident Team from Newcastle will now investigate all circumstances surrounding the incident.

That investigation will be subject to independent review.

All information will be provided to the Coroner who will determine the cause of death and make any findings about the events leading to the woman’s death.

The welfare of the police officers has been addressed and they are being supported.

The woman's family has been notified and our thoughts and condolences go out to the family.

Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm appears intent on publicly making a fool of himself

This is what Sydney Morning Herald journalist Mark Kenny had to say about Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm on 8 August 2016:

David Leyonhjelm is a boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block. And that new Hansonite conspiracy theorist from Queensland? He's an absurdist fringe-dweller and fellow hate-speech apologist. It's a case of wacky and wackier.

Neither of these self-promoting misanthropes would have the first idea about entrenched discrimination. Yet both are experts.

You may disagree with this harsh critique and probably think it unbecoming of a serious media outlet. But offensive to them, it is not. And that's the point.

You see, this gormless duo has declared, with all their angry-white-male certitude, that a verbal abuser cannot cause offence or humiliation. It is all in the mind of the recipient.

In their peerless assessment of the lived experience of all minorities, they have decreed that the fault of hate-speech does not lie with the utterer of a given slur or insult, no matter how cruel, baseless, or humiliating. Rather, the "offence" lies with the recipient - the subject who simply "decides" to be affronted.

Infantile reasoning, but there it is……..

Leyonhjelm, who has been sitting in the Australia senate since July 2014, has reported taken the matter of being described as having angry-white-male certitude to the Human Rights Commission allegedly lodging a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – the very section of the act he is keen to see abolished.

This is an excerpt from Section 18C of this act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence…..

The senator’s behaviour is suspect because he would be well aware that airing his supposedly offended feelings will probably go nowhere because of Section 18D of that same act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions

                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

New Matilda was less than impressed by both Leyonhjelm and Roberts on 16 August 2016:

Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, during an August 2016 

appearance on ABC's Insider's program.

News broke yesterday that Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging he was racially vilified by Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny, who called him an ‘angry white man’. Chris Graham explains why Leyonhjelm will lose, why the current debate around 18c is a ridiculous furphy, and why free speech has never really been under threat……

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts tried to claim on ABC Insiders recently that 18c was introduced by “Julia Gillard to nobble Andrew Bolt”.

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, 

appearing on ABC’s Insiders program in August 2016.

In fact, 18c was introduced by Keating government Attorney General Michael Lavarch in 1995. That’s three years before Julia Gillard was even elected to parliament, 15 years before she became Prime Minister, and 16 years before Bolt was successfully sued under the 18c provisions. It also happens to be about three or four years before Bolt started writing his rants for the Herald Sun (in the late 1990s).

George Brandis made headlines in 2014 while railing against 18c when he remarked in parliament that ‘everyone has the right to be a bigot’. Which is strictly true, but under Australian law, our Attorney General seemed not to understand that there are so sanctions for being ‘said bigot’.

Since Bolt lost, all the usual suspects have railed against 18c. They need to let it go. Really. So does the media. There is literally nothing to see here. Free speech is not under attack.

You cannot have a rational discussion about 18c without acknowledging the existence of 18d. But that is what conservative whingers keep doing, and the media keep letting them get away with it. It has to stop.

Of all those whingers, David Leyonhjelm is perhaps one of the least interesting, but that brings us neatly back to his boy’s own adventure in the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the other major reason why Leyonhjelm will lose his case.

Ego.

Shortly after news broke of his complaint, Leyonhjelm took to the airwaves to boast that he wasn’t really insulted, offended, humiliated and/or intimidated. He was just trying it on to expose how bad section 18c really was.

The work of the AHRC is extremely important. It has labored under funding cuts by the Coalition, and yet despite this, has still delivered crucial work, such as its inquiry into abuse in immigration detention.

And yet, despite the pressure on the Commission, an elected parliamentary representative appears to have tried to spark a government inquiry purely for sh*ts and giggles…..

Energy Resource Information Centre sternly taken to task by Doctors for the Environment Australia

On 21 April 2016 the Energy Resource Information Centre wrote a letter to the editor of the Border Watch newspaper.

Doctors for the Environment Australia took exception in a letter to the editor of Border Watch in May 2016:

It is disappointing to again find myself misrepresented in letters to the Editor of your good paper as an ‘activist presenter’ and to witness the Doctors for the Environment Australia be identified as a ‘protest group’ by the Director of the Energy Resource Information Centre. This Centre describes itself as a ‘research and advocacy group for the natural gas industry’ aiming to provide a ‘fact-based evidence-led source of information about natural gas and development’. 

I hope that Border Watch readers felt fact-check bells ringing in their heads while reading this letter. For readers unaware, DEA is a voluntary organisation of doctors and medical students across Australia. DEA is guided by a Research Committee that proudly includes a Nobel Prize Winner, the 2003 Australian of the Year, Deans of Medicine at many of our leading medical schools and world class researchers. Clearly the DEA is not well described as a ‘protest group’.

Furthermore, motives need to be checked. DEA members are motivated by their deep concern for the protection of human health in the face of damage to the environment. In contrast the Energy Resource Information Centre emphasizes its ‘deep interest in ensuring the development of natural gas resources’ (http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/151%20-%20Energy%20Resource%20Information%20Centre.pdf). 

Which group would you turn to for reliable information on current knowledge on health risks and impacts of gas developments?

The director appears to suggest he is perhaps more knowledgeable about health research than myself? I have over 30 years experience and 70 peer-reviewed publications addressing leading public health challenges. I have educated hundreds of students to understand how essential a healthy environment is to human health. I wonder what the director’s health research credentials are? 

An analogy to the issues raised by the director would be, if I can’t prove that my child will be hit if she runs across the street in moving traffic, and I can't be sure if a Holden or a Subaru will hit her, I may as well let her run into the traffic and see what happens. Environmental health studies don’t seek proof, they seek evidence of the presence or absence of harm and this evidence builds over time. The source of harm, be it air, water or distressing experiences matters less than the fact that harm may be happening.

"The key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the evidence that it is safe"

Another serious concern of the director’s letter is the nuance to readers that ‘fracking’ is the only part of unconventional gas mining that matters. In fact, there are a range of risks to human health possible at each step of the process which have not been adequately assessed - but for which there is accumulating evidence. 

I understand the challenges researchers face in measuring the health risks and impacts of this complex industry. I have watched the rapid growth of studies and peer reviewed publications on the topic – now emerging almost daily, shedding new light on potential harms across the United States. 

The key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the evidence that it is safe. A publication in the highly regarded journal PLOS One examined peer-reviewed publications reporting new research on water pollution (58 studies), air pollution (46 studies) and health impacts (31 studies). Evidence of contamination were identified in 69% of studies on water and 87% of those on air pollution, while 84% reported negative health risks and impacts. 

Australia in general, and South Australia in particular, has enormous potential to develop its wind and solar energy potential, creating opportunities with minimal risks to both health and the environment. 

Most disappointing in this letter is evidence of a continued lack of real dialogue and transparency regarding the risks and unknowns involved in unconventional gas mining. This raises serious questions about the priority the industry places on the health and wellbeing of our communities and our livestock, and the productivity of our lands.

Associate Professor Melissa Haswell, 

Doctors for the Environment Australia, 
University of New South Wales