Facts of the QP9

Michael Harrington

G'day and welcome to the Police Procedures Podcast. I'm Michael Harrington.

Jack Martin

And I'm Jack Martin. Today we're tackling something that's critical to successful prosecutions - the QP9. In just the next five minutes, we'll break down exactly what makes a good QP9 and where things often go wrong.

Michael Harrington

You know, Jack, our officers are out there doing fantastic work, making arrests, protecting the community. But sometimes the paperwork doesn't match the quality of their street work.

Jack Martin

Exactly right. Let's start with the biggest issue I'm seeing - police jargon. Officers write like they're filling out an occurrence sheet rather than telling a clear story that anyone can understand.

Michael Harrington

Give us some examples of that.

Jack Martin

Here's a classic one I saw recently: "The defendant was observed to exit the aforementioned premises and proceed to affect egress via the rear gate whereupon the defendant has made contact with attending police."

Michael Harrington

In plain English?

Jack Martin

The defendant walked out of the house and met police at the back gate. Simple, clear, third-person narrative that any magistrate can follow.

Michael Harrington

Here's another beauty I saw, upon conducting mobile patrols, I observed a male person who appeared to be engaging in behaviour consistent with street-level drug distribution."

Jack Martin

When you could simply write, Police saw the defendant standing on Smith Street exchanging small packages for cash with multiple people.

Michael Harrington

Let's talk about those essential elements that sometimes get missed. I reviewed a QP9 for an assault charge recently where the officer wrote two paragraphs about the lead-up to the incident but only one line about the actual assault.

Jack Martin

That's a common problem. Officers sometimes focus on what they think is interesting rather than what's legally relevant. What should they have written?

Michael Harrington

Well, where they wrote, the defendant was acting aggressively, he had been drinking, and he pushed the victim.

Michael Harrington

Instead, they should have written something like, the defendant forcefully pushed the victim with both hands to the chest, causing the victim to fall backwards onto the concrete footpath.

Michael Harrington

The victim sustained grazing to both elbows and a bruised tailbone.

Jack Martin

Perfect example. You've covered the nature of the force, the impact, and the injuries which are all essential elements of an assault charge.

Michael Harrington

Let's now shift to talking about negating defences that are raised in interviews, this is another area where we're seeing problems.

Jack Martin

Absolutely. If the offender raises self-defence in the interview, you can't just ignore it, it needs to address it head-on and negated.

Michael Harrington

Give us an example.

Jack Martin

Sure, say the offender claims they only punched the victim because they thought they were about to be attacked.

Jack Martin

Instead of ignoring this, the QP9 should read something like...

Jack Martin

CCTV footage shows the victim standing with their hands by their sides, not making any aggressive movements.

Jack Martin

The defendant approached from behind and struck without warning.

Michael Harrington

Ok, that's great. Simple and succinct and deals with the issue raised.

Michael Harrington

Let's shift focus again. The issue of irrelevant information? I'm seeing a lot of QP9s that include every detail of the investigation.

Jack Martin

Definitely. I saw one example that read, Police attended the address at 2:30 PM. The weather was overcast with light rain. The defendant's mother answered the door wearing a blue jumper. She invited police inside and offered them a cup of tea. Police observed family photos on the wall...

Michael Harrington

When all you really need is, Police attended the address at 2:30 PM and spoke with the defendant.

Jack Martin

Exactly.

Jack Martin

Ok, now let's talk about properly particularising offences. I'm seeing a lot of vague descriptions that fail to address the elements of the offence.

Michael Harrington

Yeah, like those public nuisance charges that just say, the defendant was causing a disturbance.

Jack Martin

So right. Instead, what should be written is something like...

Jack Martin

the defendant was standing in the centre of Queen Street Mall screaming profanities at passing shoppers. Multiple families with young children were forced to cross the street to avoid him. The defendant's specific words were ...

Jack Martin

Then list the expletives used.

Michael Harrington

Similarly, in the case of drug charges, instead of...

Michael Harrington

Police located dangerous drugs, write...

Michael Harrington

Police located a clip-seal bag containing 1.5 grams of white crystalline substance in the defendant's front right jeans pocket. The substance was field tested and returned a positive presumptive result for methylamphetamine.

Jack Martin

Ok , time for a quick recap.

Jack Martin

The QP9 needs to...

Jack Martin

use plain English,

Jack Martin

focus on legally relevant facts,

Jack Martin

address defences or excuses raised in interviews,

Jack Martin

properly particularise each offence,

Jack Martin

be written in the third person

Jack Martin

and only include information that proves the elements of the charge.

Michael Harrington

And remember, when writing your narrative,

Michael Harrington

start with clear identification of all parties,

Michael Harrington

set out any relevant orders or conditions that relate to the charge,

Michael Harrington

tell the story chronologically,

Michael Harrington

provide specific details about the offending behaviour,

Michael Harrington

document evidence clearly

Michael Harrington

and address all defences wether raised by the accused or on the evidence.

Michael Harrington

Now before we get into multiple offences, let's talk about contraventions of domestic violence orders. This is an area where details of the order need to be properly articulated in the QP9.

Jack Martin

Absolutely. Let's start with how to properly document the order itself in your QP9. I'm seeing a lot of vague references that create problems in court.

Michael Harrington

Here's an example of how NOT to write it, the defendant is named on a DVO protecting the aggrieved. The defendant breached this order by attending her address.

Jack Martin

That tells us almost nothing about the order. Give us an example of how it should be written?

Michael Harrington

Here's how it should be addressed,

Michael Harrington

the defendant is named as the respondent in a Protection Order made in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 15 January 2024.

Michael Harrington

The order remains in force until 14 January 2029.

Michael Harrington

The aggrieved is Jane BROWN.

Michael Harrington

The order prohibits contact, approaching within 100 metres, and attendance at the aggrieved's residence.

Michael Harrington

The defendant was present when the order was made.

Michael Harrington

Now, addressing the circumstances of the contravention, the facts should read something like,

Michael Harrington

at 3:30 PM on 29 January 2024, the defendant attended at the aggrieved's residence at 123 Smith Street Brisbane.

Michael Harrington

The defendant knocked repeatedly on the front door while calling out to the aggrieved.

Michael Harrington

The aggrieved recorded this behaviour on her mobile phone.

Michael Harrington

At 3:35 PM, the defendant sent three text messages to the aggrieved stating he wouldn't leave until she spoke with him.

Michael Harrington

Police attended at 3:40 PM and located the defendant at the front door.

Michael Harrington

When questioned, the defendant admitted being aware of the conditions of the order but was frustrated and attended at the address to talk about child access arrangements.

Michael Harrington

Evidence obtained by police include the aggrieved's video recording and screenshots of the text messages received from the defendant.

Jack Martin

That's perfect. Notice how it covers every essential element without getting bogged down in unnecessary detail.

Michael Harrington

And importantly, it still addresses the issue raised about child access without letting it overshadow the clear breach of the order.

Jack Martin

ok then, moving on to something else that's causing problems in court - multiple offences in the same QP9. This is a big one. Officers are dealing with complex situations where multiple offences occur, and they're trying to cover everything in one continuous narrative.

Michael Harrington

I reviewed one recently where the officer had three separate charges, a drug possession, an assault, and a wilful damage, that were all mixed in one tangled narrative.

Jack Martin

Tell us how it was written and then outline how it should have been be addressed.

Michael Harrington

Here's what they wrote, Police attended the address in relation to a disturbance. The defendant was in possession of drugs and had punched a hole in the wall after assaulting the victim. The defendant was arrested and transported to the watch house.

Jack Martin

That's a classic example of latent ambiguity. When did each offence occur? What drugs? What damage? What assault?

Michael Harrington

Exactly. An example of how it should have been written, with separate headings for each charge is something like this...

Michael Harrington

Charge 1, Possess Dangerous Drug.

Michael Harrington

At 7:30 PM, police attended 123 Smith Street in relation to a disturbance. Police located the defendant in the front bedroom. A search of the defendant's backpack revealed a clip-seal bag containing 1.1 grams of a white crystalline substance. The substance was field tested and returned a presumptive result for methylamphetamine.

Michael Harrington

Charge 2, Assault.

Michael Harrington

At 7:15 PM, prior to police arrival, the defendant had grabbed the victim by the throat with his right hand and pushed her against the bedroom wall. The victim sustained redness and bruising to her neck area. The victim informed police that there had been no restriction of the airway to any degree. This assault was witnessed by Jane Brown, who was present in the house at the time.

Michael Harrington

And finally Charge 3, Wilful Damage.

Michael Harrington

After assaulting the victim, at approximately 7:20 PM, the defendant punched the bedroom wall with a closed right fist creating a hole measuring 30 centimetres by 30 centimetres.

Michael Harrington

The property is a rental premises managed by Ray White Real Estate. Repair quotes obtained indicate a cost of $180 to repair the damage.

Jack Martin

Perfect example.

Jack Martin

Each charge is clearly separated, properly particularised, and all elements are addressed,

Jack Martin

outlines the extent of the injury and damage sustained

Jack Martin

along with the relevant restitution that will eventually sought by the prosecution.

Michael Harrington

And notice how we've maintained a clear timeline through all three charges, so there's no confusion about when each event occurred.

Jack Martin

Ok, another scenario that's routinely popping up, is issues with multiple defendants in the same incident. Want to tackle that one?

Michael Harrington

Sure.

Michael Harrington

Firstly, here's an example of how not to address the issue...

Michael Harrington

the defendants were observed fighting with the victim.

Michael Harrington

Smith punched while Jones kicked the victim.

Michael Harrington

The victim fell to the ground and was further assaulted.

Jack Martin

How should this be addressed in the QP9?

Michael Harrington

You need to separate the narratives for each defendant, taking the above example, you'd write something like..

Michael Harrington

in relation to Defendant SMITH,

Michael Harrington

at 10:30 PM, Smith approached the victim from the front and punched him three times to the face with a closed right fist. After the victim fell to the ground, Smith kicked him twice to the ribs.

Michael Harrington

Then in relation to Defendant JONES,

Michael Harrington

at 10:30 PM, while Smith was punching the victim, Jones approached from behind and kicked the victim's legs, causing him to fall. Jones then kicked the victim once to the head while he was on the ground.

Jack Martin

That’s it, so each defendant's actions are clearly identified and separated.

Michael Harrington

Exactly. And this becomes even more important when defendants are charged with different offences arising from the same incident.

Jack Martin

All right Michael, in summing up, let's give our listeners a final checklist for dealing with multiple charges,

Jack Martin

deal with each charge under its own heading,

Jack Martin

address each elements for each individual charge,

Jack Martin

maintain a clear chronology across all charges,

Jack Martin

specify times for each offence where possible,

Jack Martin

cross-reference only when absolutely necessary,

Jack Martin

keep each defendant's actions separate and clear

Jack Martin

and address defences for each charge individually.

Jack Martin

One last thing before we go, I want to raise is the use of language, other than English, in the QP9.

Michael Harrington

Yes, I’ve seen this a bit and this is to be avoided at all costs.

Michael Harrington

Firstly, the QP9 is to be written in the 3rd person, or past tense. The officer should simply be providing a narrative of the incident. When it comes to dealing with what was said or written in a text, the officer should simply be providing an overview only, and that synopsis should be strictly in English.

Jack Martin

So where should the actual language be recorded.

Michael Harrington

That's something the officer should be dealing with in a formal statement.

Michael Harrington

Remember, the QP9 isn't a formal statement but simply a concise summary of the relevant facts.

Michael Harrington

The statement the officer takes should list the actual language, along with the english version of what the person making the statement understood the language to mean.

Michael Harrington

Again, a different matter for another day.

Jack Martin

Well we’ve covered a bit of ground; I think we’ll leave it there for today.

Michael Harrington

Absolutely, so on that note, thanks for joining us today. I'm Michael Harrington.

Jack Martin

And I'm Jack Martin. Keep those QP9s sharp, and we'll catch you next time.