Australasian Policing

1 VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 Policing Vol. 6, No. 2 Summer 2014 Published by the Australasian Institute of Policing Inc. A0050444D ABN: 78 937 405 524 ISSN: 1837-7009 EditorJenny FlemingBoard Members Australasian Institute of PolicingPublic Officer: Philip Green Treasurer: Philip Green President: Garry Dobson Secretary: Peter Shinfield Vice-President: Helen McDermottPublisherEmergency Media1st Floor, 560 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Vic 3000. Direct all advertising enquiries to 1300 855 Post approved: 352524/00309 FrequencySummer and WinterContributions Articles on issues of professional interest are sought from Australasian police officers and police academics. Articles are to be electronically provided to the Editor, Articles are to conform to normal academic conventions.

2 Where an article has previously been prepared during the course of employment, whether with a police service or otherwise, the contributor will be responsible for obtaining permission from that employer to submit the article for publication to Australasian are expected to adhere to the Journal s publishing guidelines. These guidelines are available in this journal. All papers are every effort is made to check for accuracy, the Publishers or Editors cannot be held responsible for the content, errors or omissions inadvertently published in articles and advertisements in Australasian Policing . Views expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of AiPol, the Editors or the Publisher.

3 No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting, or refraining from acting, as a result of material in this publication can be rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or be stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without written permission of the copyright holder and the Publisher, application for which in the first instance should be made to the Publisher for AiPol. ContentsDecision Making and the National Intelligence Model: No Accounting for Decision Bias Palmer P, Pournara M, Espinosa Delgardo I and Palmer H 2 Mental Health and Policing in the UK A Watershed Moment?

4 Professor Jenny Fleming 6 Policing Youth Curfews: The Wee Willie Winkie Model of Enforcing Bail Conditions Angela Robinson and Isabelle Bartkowiak-Th ron 10Re-thinking Counter-Terrorism and Crime Prevention Strategies from a Harm Perspective Tim Prenzler 15 Police Overseas Service Medal Awarded to Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary Maxwell R. HAYES 17 The Utility of Community Policing Insights from England and Wales and UruguayFederico del Castillo, Ricardo Fraiman and Professor Colin Rogers 19 Governing Science Malcolm K.

5 Sparrow 24 Missing Persons in Australia Natalie Clements 36 Police Modernising the Gateway to the Criminal Justice System Peter Neyroud 40 PRIMARY MEMBERSHIP COMPRISED FROMA ustralasian Policing A Journal of Professional Practice and Research Page 1 Decision Making and the National Intelligence Model: No Accounting for Decision BiasPalmer P1, Pournara M2, Espinosa Delgardo I3 and Palmer H4 IntroductionThis paper discusses the role of decision making within the context of the Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) and suggests that reliance on this model may lead to some profound abstractions because knowledge based on intelligence can be partial or incomplete and should not necessarily become the sole basis for constructing a strategic or tactical response to solving (at least in the long term) a crime problem.

6 Intelligence is often limited, separate objects of information that then become the basis for constructing a view of a larger whole. We suggest that ILP suffers from a system reliance bias where practitioners use a subsystem of intuitive mental routines to cope with the complexity inherent in their decisions. These simplifying heuristic mechanisms, although prone to bias and errors, are nonetheless essential in making decisions because decision makers rely on experiential, tacit knowledge supported by heuristic rules that enable decision makers to make sense of information. As crime control is increasingly seen through the lens of intelligence, Policing is accomplished through ILP : Strategies and tactics belonging to police experts are translated into operational practice.

7 Like structural-functional sociology, ILP systems are good at analysing information that restore or maintain the systems functionality rather than identify contradictions which could lead to the systems transformation. There is a danger that the use of analysis could dominate problem solving when innovative, creative thinking is required. In Policing this becomes problematic since choice heuristics are often constructed from internal organisational memory, or external policy or pressure, which may biased by prior evaluations of, and preferences for, the alternatives being considered. Several of the more common biases relevant to Policing are briefly discussed in this article.

8 Our intent is to draw attention to the relevance and impact of cognitive heuristics and biases on the accuracy of ILP decision In the recent era of increasing concerns about crime, policy makers and law enforcement officials are constantly seeking to improve their effectiveness in response to the demands imposed upon them by an increasingly diverse, technological, globalised, mobile, sophisticated rights conscious and knowledge based society (Walsh and Conway, 2011, 61). This is reflected in the development and deployment of new technologies and a shift towards intelligence led, proactive detection and prevention strategies.

9 ILP has developed as a methodology for managing day-to-day tactical Policing activities in a rapidly changing operating environment. It has becomes increasingly important in an age where the role of police has morphed from simplistic response and enforcement activity to one of managing human security risk. In this evolving paradigm shift it is argued that intelligence can be used to reduce the impact of strategic surprise from evolving criminal threats and environmental change. Kelling and Bratton suggest that ILP facilitates, crime fighting that is guided by effective intelligence gathering and analysis and it has the potential to be the most important law enforcement innovation of the twenty-first century (Kelling and Bratton, 2006: 6).

10 The Bureau of Justice Assistance (2009: 4) has defined it as a, collaborative law enforcement approach combining problem-solving Policing , information sharing, and police accountability, with enhanced intelligence operations which has later been narrowed to: ILP is executive implementation of the intelligence cycle to support proactive decision making for resource allocation and crime prevention. In order to successfully implement this business process, police executives must have clearly defined priorities as part of their Policing strategy. The intrinsic problem with ILP is that it is an enabling or general purpose management tool which means its use and potential impact are mediated and direct.