Victoria Police has launched a landmark policy for dealing with perpetrators of family violence in its ranks that it claims will stop abusive officers from being given "special treatment" and prioritise victims' safety.
The standalone policy — the first of its kind in Australia — is being championed by senior police as a "leadership moment" for a force which has been heavily criticised in recent months for failing to hold employees who perpetrate family violence to account.
Survivor advocates and police accountability experts have welcomed the policy as a crucial "first step" in fixing what is a pervasive but often hidden problem affecting law enforcement agencies around the world, but which Australian police forces have seemed resistant to acknowledge, let alone address well.
Yet some are concerned critical flaws in the new advice will perpetuate existing problems that fuel a "culture of impunity" within the organisation and undermine community trust: Police closing ranks around accused colleagues, mishandling investigations, and putting the welfare of abusive officers before that of vulnerable victims.
The policy, which pulls together advice previously spread across several documents, states that Victoria Police regards family violence as "extremely serious", and will respond to and investigate "all family violence behaviours" involving employees "consistent with" the response it provides to the community.
Assistant Commissioner Lauren Callaway of Family Violence Command said victims could now have confidence that a single set of rules stipulating how reports will be investigated will be "stringently followed" by police. "There should be no doubt. Our priority is the safety of victims," Ms Callaway told ABC News.
"Creating this policy is a leadership moment for this organisation, and we are proud to be the first policing agency [in Australia] to proactively tackle an issue that uncovers behaviours we don't want to see in our workforce."
Addressing an accountability 'crisis'
The policy's launch comes after damning revelations Victoria Police — like other forces in Australia — has been failing to hold domestic violence perpetrators in its ranks to account, with an ABC News investigation last year uncovering "vast disparities" between how it treats employees who use violence and offenders in the broader community.
The latest figures obtained under Freedom of Information show 82 Victoria Police officers were charged with family violence offences in the five years to 2019, however only one was found guilty and none had convictions recorded. Though some of those charged faced disciplinary action including transferral to other duties, demotion and suspension without pay, none were sacked or dismissed.
The data, together with victims' claims that police have too often mishandled allegations of abuse, has spurred calls for Victoria Police to address its accountability "crisis" and overhaul its culture of "protecting their own" above all else.
The issues go to the heart of a fundamental question all police forces in Australia are increasingly grappling with: Will Victoria Police, whose core work is responding to family violence, allow perpetrators to remain in its ranks? If police can't police themselves — if they don't hold domestic violence offenders in their organisation to account — how can they be trusted to do so in the broader community?
Assistant Commissioner Tess Walsh of Professional Standards Command (PSC) said the most recent analysis showed most employees charged with family violence resigned before the disciplinary process could take place, but that more work would be done to understand why cases weren't progressing to the courts.
"There is no doubt improvement is needed ... We recognise we have not always got it right but the organisation is determined to improve," Ms Walsh said. "The new standalone policy aims to address inconsistencies in how cases have been treated and ensure there is no special treatment for police."
To that end, the policy aims to clarify the roles, responsibilities and procedures police must follow when responding to family violence involving their colleagues. Such matters, it says, have "extra requirements" for removing conflicts of interest and maintaining procedural fairness, and reports involving employees identified as perpetrators must be treated as complaints against police.
Notably, it states in a preamble that the "primary responsibility of police" in relation to family violence reports is "the safety and welfare" of victims and children. Yet aside from some brief directions for how police should deal with employee victims, the policy doesn't explicitly outline how victim safety should be given primacy.
New unit to investigate 'high risk' cases
One of the most significant shifts under the policy, however, is its establishment of a new model for allocating family violence cases involving police, and a new unit within PSC dedicated to investigating the most serious and complex matters: those featuring strangulation, for instance, or "persistent patterns" of behaviour.
The unit will be staffed by nine specialist detectives, two sergeants and be led by a divisional superintendent, who will oversee the triaging and allocation of investigations. Cases not classified as high risk will remain with regional investigators, as they previously have — though not necessarily officers with specialist family violence training.
To assist in managing conflicts of interest, the policy states, investigations "may be transferred" to neighbouring divisions "where practicable".
"We acknowledge some employees are using their understanding of the systems and processes in place to investigate family violence to avoid being held accountable," Ms Walsh said. "Investigators from the new unit will have experience and training to identify and respond to this behaviour."
But Lauren Caulfield, coordinator of the Policing Family Violence Project, said the policy creates an "ambiguous threshold" for high risk cases that shouldn't exist.
"All police perpetrated family violence is high risk because the abuser's role as a police officer makes it inherently high risk," Ms Caulfield said. Many victims also do not trust police and often won't disclose the most serious abuse right away, she added, meaning officers are unlikely to realise the severity of their matter.
Ms Walsh said she expected all matters to be "investigated thoroughly", whether by the new unit or otherwise, and that cases could be reclassified at any stage "if more serious allegations are disclosed".
Still, that a significant proportion of cases will continue to be investigated by general duties members at regional level is predictably raising alarm. It remains one of the most pressing concerns among survivors and police accountability experts across the country: that police working in the same station or region as alleged perpetrators cannot conduct impartial investigations. Investigations should be referred to highly trained officers at different stations or commands as a requirement, they say, not "where practicable".
"We are hoping that this is addressed in the future or at least better monitored by PSC in practice, with a mechanism for victims to raise concerns, said Michelle*, who is suing Victoria Police for allegedly breaching its duty of care in its handling of her family violence matter involving an officer. "How PSC's new unit is run, whether it is properly supported and how it engages with victims, particularly when regional investigators fail them, is far more important than policy."
Advocates fear for victim privacy, safety
Advocates are also concerned the policy effectively permits the disclosure of sensitive information like victim safety plans by police on "member welfare" grounds. It states that confidentiality should be maintained "as far as practicable" when responding to family violence involving employees, and information should only be shared with those "directly involved" in such matters.
But Ms Caulfield said the "as far as practicable" caveat opens the door to confidentiality breaches. "We have already seen these breaches of privacy occur, including with police sharing the escape plan of a victim of family violence by a police perpetrator on the grounds of 'member welfare'," she said.
In that case, Victoria Police disclosed Michelle's confidential escape plan to her perpetrator, John* — a former senior constable who was last year convicted of several violent offences — which court documents say resulted in him physically and sexually assaulting her.
An internal investigation found the disclosure was inappropriate and a careless duty failure by the investigating detective and John's manager, while IBAC, the police watchdog, also found it should not have occurred. However, Victoria Police have since argued in their defence to the Supreme Court the disclosure was "necessary" to ensure "appropriate arrangements" were in place to support John.
Ms Callaway said "information sharing" was sometimes required to "manage risks", but that Victoria Police was "open to making improvements".
"The policy has various points of supervision and oversight to ensure all family violence reports are managed appropriately," Ms Callaway said. "When looking at it from this perspective, victim survivors should be able to draw some comfort from the fact we do not sweep these crimes under the carpet and ... that we will act quickly against members who do not comply with confidentiality provisions."
As for whether "quick" action is taken is debatable. John wasn't suspended by Victoria Police until weeks after he was convicted and sentenced to jail, and he resigned before disciplinary hearings. Meanwhile, one of the officers who disclosed Michelle's escape plan was given "workplace guidance" at PSC's advice some 2.5 years after the incident; another is yet to be disciplined.
Michelle told ABC News the new policy and the candour of the new unit's leadership had given her "a degree of hope" that Victoria Police may be prepared to start confronting its problem with abusive officers, but that what matters most is how it is administered, and whether offenders and their enablers are actually held to account.
"Releasing the policy is Victoria Police acknowledging its police perpetrator problem and starting to face into it — that's significant for victims, police families, Victoria Police and the community," Michelle said. "The community doesn't want perpetrators in uniform responding to family violence jobs or handling rape cases, but more cultural and practice reform is needed, beyond policy, for those community expectations to be met."
The policy's ultimate test
Some of the issues being raised may be the result of a lack of consultation with victims, especially those who aren't Victoria Police employees. It's not clear that any victims with relevant experience had direct involvement in the policy's development, though Ms Callaway said she was "pleased" that some survivors within the organisation had been in touch since its launch to give feedback.
Meanwhile, victim-survivors say dealing with family violence by police officers is often complicated by concerns about potential employment consequences — if reports of abuse are treated as complaints like they're supposed to be, say — and how perpetrators may react to them. These concerns have sometimes been used by police to discourage victims from reporting, and too often resulted in them withdrawing complaints, delaying or never seeking help.
As for whether and how Victoria Police deal with complexities like this will be the ultimate test for the policy and the force's preparedness to shift harmful parts of its culture.
For now, though, police are treating it as a line in the sand, even stepping up monitoring of how officers are putting it into practice. For instance, Ms Walsh said all frontline staff are required to wear body-worn cameras, which will be used to ensure first responders are complying with the rules. Those who don't, she said, will be investigated.
"We are serious about changing any culture of protecting fellow employees over the rights of family violence victims," Ms Walsh said. "We believe that responding to these matters in a swift, consistent and fair way will demonstrate that to the organisation. We acknowledge our organisation has a culture of banding together in adversity, however extending this to 'covering up' is corrupt activity and will not be tolerated."
For Ms Caulfield, however, talk is cheap. "It doesn't matter what police say in the media or in policy about their commitment to holding police perpetrators to account, it matters what they do," she said.
"This is about systemic abuse and puncturing the veil of impunity around police that has existed for so long. It is about the safety and lives of people targeted, and it's fundamentally about whether Victoria Police will allow family violence perpetrators and those who shield or enable them to remain in the force."
