You can’t charge me, I’m a cop

should police, corrections staff and law enforcement officers be immune from criminal liability for actions carried out against vulnerable people in the course of their duties?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article will argue that current Australian laws which provide for immunity from criminal liability for police, corrections staff and other law enforcement officers for actions carried out in the course of their duties should be repealed. It will, firstly, survey and analyse a number of such provisions in different Australian jurisdictions. The laws cover several different occupations and contexts: from police officers arresting or holding people in custody; to prison or juvenile detention centre officers carrying out their duties; and to immigration detention centre guards. In the process, it will consider the extent to which such provisions operate more favourably to the defendant than the ordinary law of self-defence. Secondly, the article will consider what policy justifications there may be for or against the existence of such provisions. This will include a discussion of the historical origin of criminal immunity provisions in Australia, including the policy implications of the history of the use of force against Aboriginal people by police. It will conclude that a human rights-based perspective requires the repeal of such provisions, which operate primarily upon vulnerable people (prisoners, people being arrested or detainees), and are consequently liable to abuse.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)670-701
Number of pages32
JournalUniversity of New South Wales Law Journal
Volume41
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Cite this

@article{ecafbfeff9ac4eb196af2c47ac473640,
title = "You can’t charge me, I’m a cop: should police, corrections staff and law enforcement officers be immune from criminal liability for actions carried out against vulnerable people in the course of their duties?",
abstract = "This article will argue that current Australian laws which provide for immunity from criminal liability for police, corrections staff and other law enforcement officers for actions carried out in the course of their duties should be repealed. It will, firstly, survey and analyse a number of such provisions in different Australian jurisdictions. The laws cover several different occupations and contexts: from police officers arresting or holding people in custody; to prison or juvenile detention centre officers carrying out their duties; and to immigration detention centre guards. In the process, it will consider the extent to which such provisions operate more favourably to the defendant than the ordinary law of self-defence. Secondly, the article will consider what policy justifications there may be for or against the existence of such provisions. This will include a discussion of the historical origin of criminal immunity provisions in Australia, including the policy implications of the history of the use of force against Aboriginal people by police. It will conclude that a human rights-based perspective requires the repeal of such provisions, which operate primarily upon vulnerable people (prisoners, people being arrested or detainees), and are consequently liable to abuse.",
author = "Stephen Gray",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "670--701",
journal = "University of New South Wales Law Journal",
issn = "0313-0096",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - You can’t charge me, I’m a cop

T2 - should police, corrections staff and law enforcement officers be immune from criminal liability for actions carried out against vulnerable people in the course of their duties?

AU - Gray, Stephen

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - This article will argue that current Australian laws which provide for immunity from criminal liability for police, corrections staff and other law enforcement officers for actions carried out in the course of their duties should be repealed. It will, firstly, survey and analyse a number of such provisions in different Australian jurisdictions. The laws cover several different occupations and contexts: from police officers arresting or holding people in custody; to prison or juvenile detention centre officers carrying out their duties; and to immigration detention centre guards. In the process, it will consider the extent to which such provisions operate more favourably to the defendant than the ordinary law of self-defence. Secondly, the article will consider what policy justifications there may be for or against the existence of such provisions. This will include a discussion of the historical origin of criminal immunity provisions in Australia, including the policy implications of the history of the use of force against Aboriginal people by police. It will conclude that a human rights-based perspective requires the repeal of such provisions, which operate primarily upon vulnerable people (prisoners, people being arrested or detainees), and are consequently liable to abuse.

AB - This article will argue that current Australian laws which provide for immunity from criminal liability for police, corrections staff and other law enforcement officers for actions carried out in the course of their duties should be repealed. It will, firstly, survey and analyse a number of such provisions in different Australian jurisdictions. The laws cover several different occupations and contexts: from police officers arresting or holding people in custody; to prison or juvenile detention centre officers carrying out their duties; and to immigration detention centre guards. In the process, it will consider the extent to which such provisions operate more favourably to the defendant than the ordinary law of self-defence. Secondly, the article will consider what policy justifications there may be for or against the existence of such provisions. This will include a discussion of the historical origin of criminal immunity provisions in Australia, including the policy implications of the history of the use of force against Aboriginal people by police. It will conclude that a human rights-based perspective requires the repeal of such provisions, which operate primarily upon vulnerable people (prisoners, people being arrested or detainees), and are consequently liable to abuse.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066124598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 670

EP - 701

JO - University of New South Wales Law Journal

JF - University of New South Wales Law Journal

SN - 0313-0096

IS - 3

ER -