Armed police in courts may ‘compromise’ safety: NSW Bar

Allowing police to carry guns into courts may undermine current security protocols and cause confusion, says the president of the NSW Bar Association.

Felicity Nelson • 11 August 2015 • The Bar

The change came into effect yesterday, following an announcement by the state government last week that police will now be permitted to carry weapons into courts.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

Courts have previously been firearm-free for police under a directive from NSW’s chief magistrate. However, the heightened terror threat has led the government to reverse the policy.

President of the NSW Bar Association Jane Needham SC (pictured) said the new protocol on guns in court obscures the real problem relating to court security.

“If there are concerns regarding the security of our courts they should be directly confronted, rather than through a patchwork agreement that enables police officers to now carry their guns in courthouses,” Ms Needham said.

Under the protocol, police officers may carry weapons when attending court to give evidence and, in the District and Local Courts to brief prosecutors.

VIEW ALL

“These ad hoc arrangements have the potential to cause confusion and harm in the event of a security incident in one of our courts,” continued Ms Needham.

“Traditionally the sheriff has been responsible for all court security and under the protocol will continue to have overall responsibility in this regard.

“However, that oversight is compromised by police officers carrying firearms in court and the potential for them to respond independently to possible incidents raises concerns for the safety of judicial officers and parties.”

Ms Needham said that if the government is serious about security in NSW courts, it should ensure adequate resources are allocated to fund the necessary improvements.

“The current protocol is a quick fix, which ironically may compromise rather than enhance the safety of the judiciary and court users,” she concluded.

Skylark Friday, 04 September 2015

Armed Police in courts is an affront to the independence of the judiciary, its officers and the people seeking justice. How would the police like it if the millitary took over the police and an around waving their automatic weapons and grenade launchers at every police station in the name of public security. Don't we call this much despised action, Martial law or declaration of state emergency. Police hate it when the army encrouches on their territory. So why should it be any different for the courts.

0
Shovel Monday, 17 August 2015

Nobody got a say except the cops. The bench,lawyers,court staff & the sheriff dept all ignored. Day 1 at the Downing Centre was a funny vibe. Watch this space,Public sector union not happy. Judges not happy. Yes it was monday so who was happy?Bunch of gen Y cops with extra time to play with their phones sitting around outside 5.1..This issue is going to fester.

0
We're done when I say boy... Monday, 17 August 2015

Oh, I feel you miss them a lot - being able to finish a conversation by letting the other party know you are the sort of idiot who will point a gun at them to make them stop...seems very accurate." Occasionally I miss the changes" - meaning - frequently, I'm a lazy professional who relies on others to accept my laziness - I hope some of your potential clients are reading that.If you had any expansive capability in your faculties - you would appreciate what both Shovel and I have said - about NOT wanting to give you our identity, for fear of your pre-Commission bully tactics being given a new target to shoot at. The fact that you are so NEEDY about having someone to shoot at - instead of bracing the subject, is exemplary of your attitude.I do not need to identity myself to contribute to a discussion - you admit to being lazy, hence the US spelling. All done. No further comment required.I have no NEED, like you seem to, to earn 'respect'. My commentary and ability to contribute to discussion stands alone, and will impact where it does, in how it is received.So, stick to your guns - NOW you have BEEN TOLD - and we are finished - because I say so - and to quote YOU - " I won't be responding to you any further either". I look forward to you making a liar of yourself and commenting again. :)Finis. Because I said it is.

0
Shovel Saturday, 15 August 2015

You don't have a practising certificate in NSWor the ACT so you can't appear in court . How do you "comment from both sides"? How often do you actually go to a court & in what capacity ? These questions & all the others remain unanswered because " you got nothing" Your not a lawyer but you want to contribute to Lawyers Weekly. Contribute to the Police Gazette,call Ray Hadley or some other forum more suited to your limited intellect & bombastic personality. Lawyers ask awkward questions & we love calling out bullies & hypocrites . You have not addressed a single issue raised about the real agenda here which is cost cutting & denying genuine stakeholders in the court system a say.Closely followed by the risk of entrusting the Police with a task without outside governance or oversight. I have been in court every day for the last 5 weeks,sometimes 2 courts a day with no end in sight for at least the next 2 weeks. 32 years of practice behind me & I don't know how many years in front of me. If you thought "sticking your oar in" ( gender neutral) would pump your own tyres in a business sense think again your dreaming.

0
Shovel Friday, 14 August 2015

Dont know the answer to that,all the cell stuff at the big courts is Corrective Services who dont.If there is proper front office security only the police will have weapons so guns are unlikely to be need in the first place. I share your concern about a firearm being grabbed by a civilian. Some steroid injecting gorilla could KO a small stature police officer in the course of a brawl. Any body that watches Youtube can shoot a Glock. Fairly blunt tool,not really a finely calibrated response. Even when highly trained police with plenty of preparation & information go into situations with guns things can & have gone wrong.Some blow ups at court are easy to see coming & predictable others erupt so fast that responders have to charge in hoping they can subdue the "right "persons fast. I have seen plenty ,got caught up in several ,some are all noise & posturing,others are just push & shove but others are are violent.One last year at the Downing Centre level 4 memorable for all the wrong reasons. Riot squad just happened to be on standby but a lot of court staff were badly shaken up. Court staff who have a right to express an opinion about the safety of their workplace,lawyers,the bench ditto. Its not just a matter for Police who got sick of the hassle of putting the guns into lockers rather than wearing them into court.

0
Jesuisgillian Friday, 14 August 2015

I always thought the concern was not that the police would open fire indiscriminately in open court but that an accused or an "angry spectator" could seize the weapon, with unpleasant results. Do the police carry weapons into the cells?

0
Glenn Jones Friday, 14 August 2015

I don't own a gun and haven't since the great buy back after Port Arthur. I don't miss them, even though I carried one daily for decades. What I do own is an iPad that likes to Americanise everything. Occasionally I miss the changes. Google stick to your knitting for an expansive history. You may be intrigued by just when it was first used.On the subject of professionalism, how about you tell us who you are and your claims. Otherwise, I won't be responding to you any further either. If you want people to respect you and what you have to say, you have to earn that respect. Finis.

0
Glenn Jones Friday, 14 August 2015

Now you are a psychologist too Shovel. But still anonymous. You have no ticker Shovel and are therefore not worth wasting time on. Yes, some police are corrupt. Some are lazy. Some are incompetent. But most are just the kind of people that you would be glad to see when you need help or protection. I wonder, do you share your views of the police with them when you are trying to negotiate reductions in charges on behalf of your clients? I suspect it is you who is the angry one in the case.I will happily debate you and any of the others in this conversation when you each put your real names up. Until then I have better things to do. I will leave you with a couple of things to ponder. First, Gundy et al were decades ago. So long, in fact, that the police didn't even use Glocks back then and those involved are long gone. Second, you mentioned the Royal Commission. If you are such a expert I suggest that you try to work out how the Royal Commission started and who started it. Look for Mr Black and learn something new!

0
Shovel Thursday, 13 August 2015

Adam Salter ,shot by police who then covered up the truth. Coronial inquest slammed police.I had to look him up.Full PIC hearing followed.

0
Shovel Thursday, 13 August 2015

'' Stick to your knitting '' was something men said to women who expressed an opinion about "mens business". Back in the day,way way back. I can think of lots of gender neutral ways to say mind your business or stick to your area of expertise.None of which apply here because the President of NSW Bar Association has every right to express an opinion on behalf of barristers who go to the courts day in day out. This when you strip it back is about cost cutting,staff levels & finding ways to screw the lid down tighter on the funding to the court system . A system that doesnt have enough people on the payroll from Judges right down to clerical staff.

0