LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND
PARLIAMENTARY TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE
BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO - PASSENGER SECURITY
Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee Report No. 24 Released pursuant to Section 4(2)(c) of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1995 (May 1998) PARLIAMENTARY TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE
48TH PARLIAMENT
2ND SESSION
CHAIRMAN: Mr John Goss MLA, Member for Aspley
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr Terry Sullivan MLA, Member for Chermside
MEMBERS: Mr Bob Dollin MLA, Member for Maryborough
Mr John Hegarty MLA, Member for Redlands
Mr Rob Mitchell MLA, Member for Charters Towers
Mr Bill Nunn MLA, Member for Hervey Bay
RESEARCH DIRECTOR: Mr Rob Hansen
RESEARCH OFFICER: Miss Amanda Waugh
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: Miss Catherine Bird BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PREFACE PASSENGER SECURITY
PREFACE
One of the committee’s key objectives is to report on measures that will reduce car dependence and enhance public transport provision and usage in Queensland. The fear of crime on public transport is a key factor in declining public transport patronage around the world. As a major element of the public transport system in South East Queensland, the Citytrain rail network has also been affected by this problem. At the commencement of this inquiry, Queensland Rail’s customer surveys indicated that the fear of victimisation was the first or second most common factor in people’s decisions not to travel by Citytrain. It is for these reasons that the committee was keen to examine the issue of personal safety on the Citytrain network.
This report seeks to identify the true extent of crimes on the network, public perception of the level of crime and the factors which fuel these perceptions. It also examines various approaches to crime prevention, both international and national, and the efficacy of the methods currently employed by Queensland Rail. The committee paid special attention to the use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance and policing of the network.
To identify the true extent of crime on the network, the committee examined statistics on crimes involving passengers on the railway. This was obtained through searches of the Queensland Police Service Crime Reporting Information System for Police (CRISP) database for the period 1 July 1994 to 31 December 1997. These statistics suggest that the risk to passengers of being assaulted on the Citytrain network is extremely low and declining. For a regular commuter who travels 480 trips on the network annually (ten trips weekly for 48 weeks per year), the risk of being assaulted, on average, is once every 528 years.
However, the statistics do reveal that certain groups are at greater risk than others and that the risk of assault is higher at certain times. The committee found that high school aged children between the ages of 12 and 18 were most at risk. 54 percent of reported assaults during the period examined were against people in this age group. Similarly, most of the assaults reported to police were committed by children of high school age. The committee notes that Queensland Rail and the police need to examine methods of reducing altercations amongst this age group on the Citytrain network.
The committee was encouraged to learn that for the vast majority of travellers on the network the risk of being assaulted is very low, and questioned why the public perceives the Citytrain network as unsafe. It seems that these perceptions are at least partially attributable to the effects of sensationalised media reporting of isolated crimes and the lack of public information on the true extent of crime on the network. Other factors likely to affect people’s perceptions of the Citytrain network include the cleanliness of trains and stations, the presence of graffiti and exposure to rowdy or offensive groups. The committee recommends that Queensland Rail regularly publishes information on the crime prevention measures it has in place and continues to address minor incivilities, such as graffiti, to create a positive image of care and safety on Citytrain.
Having identified the types of crime committed on the network and where, when and against whom they were committed, the committee examined the crime prevention measures Queensland Rail and other railways have implemented, and their results. The committee was disappointed to discover that Queensland Rail could not produce reliable data on the incidence of crime on the network, nor demonstrate that it undertook a thorough analysis of crime on the network before major prevention measures were implemented. Having said this, it is likely that Queensland Rail’s crime prevention initiatives have played a major part in reducing crime on the Citytrain network. The committee was generally encouraged by Queensland Rail’s efforts to improve station environments, including making BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PREFACE PASSENGER SECURITY
car parks more secure, installing better lighting at stations, running Guardian Trains with enhanced security in the evenings and providing emergency help phones at stations. These measures need to be properly evaluated to determine their effectiveness and where and to what degree further improvements should be made. Queensland Rail’s introduction of CCTV surveillance to improve security is a good example.
Like other railways in Australia, Queensland Rail has invested heavily in CCTV to monitor its stations, car parks and trains. Anecdotal evidence from Queensland Rail and its staff who work the railway, suggests that the cameras are an effective crime deterrent. The committee was encouraged by this, though notes that CCTV was implemented by Queensland Rail at the same time it implemented other security initiatives on Citytrain. As far as the committee could determine, the crime prevention value of CCTV remains unproven. Given that Queensland Rail is investing in excess of $10.5 million in CCTV, the committee recommends that the use of this security technology on the Citytrain network be independently evaluated.
The committee examined how the Citytrain network is policed and the roles of the various groups responsible for providing security: Queensland Rail’s officers who are authorised under the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to enforce railway offences; the Police Rail Squad and other police; and private security guards. The committee concludes that there is some confusion over the roles, powers and authorities of the various groups involved in providing a secure network. It recommends that overlapping roles be resolved and that the Government review the scope for appointing authorised officers for railways. The committee believes a clearer demarcation of responsibilities between the Police Rail Squad and Queensland Rail will improve each group’s effectiveness. A visible policing presence on the network is important and the current staffing levels in the Police Rail Squad should also be reviewed.
On the whole, the committee was very impressed by the priority being given by Queensland Rail, the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Transport to the security of passengers on the Citytrain network. Significant, highly visible improvements have been made during the committee’s inquiry that benefit passengers. The committee encourages people to re-consider their travel options in the greater Brisbane area and to choose to use the Citytrain network more often. The peopling of the network is an effective crime prevention strategy in itself. Increasing train trips and reducing trips by private motor vehicles also contributes to a more efficient transport system and a sustained quality of life in South East Queensland into the next century.
Finally, I would like to thank the people and organisations who assisted the committee with this inquiry.
I commend this report to the House.
Mr John Goss MLA Chairman BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO TABLE OF CONTENTS PASSENGER SECURITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... I
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...... V
ABBREVIATIONS ...... VII
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...... IX
PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION...... 1 THE TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE ...... 1 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY ...... 1 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT...... 2 INQUIRY PROCESS...... 2 RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTERS ...... 3 PART 2 ~ THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK...... 5
PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN...... 7 SOURCES OF DATA ON CRIME ON RAILWAYS ...... 7 POLICE STATISTICS ON REPORTED CRIMES ...... 8 Assaults ...... 10 Robbery ...... 10 Motor Vehicle Thefts...... 10 Assault Victims and Offenders...... 11 Victims of Assaults Involving Railways in Queensland ...... 11 Assault Offenders...... 12 RISK OF CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION...... 13 Comparison with Crimes Recorded in Queensland...... 14 THE RISK OF PASSENGERS BEING ASSAULTED ON THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK ...... 15 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME ...... 16 Factors which Influence the Fear of Crime...... 16 COST TO THE COMMUNITY OF CRIME ON CITYTRAIN ...... 17 THE IMPETUS FOR CHANGE ...... 19 CONCLUSIONS ...... 19 PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS ...... 21 WHAT LEADS PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR? ...... 21 APPROACHES TO CRIME PREVENTION ...... 21 Crime Prevention Through Opportunity Reduction (Situational) Approaches...... 22 Crime Prevention Through Social Reform (Social Crime Prevention) ...... 23 CRIME PREVENTION ON RAILWAYS...... 23 Australian Studies...... 23 International Studies...... 24 THE EFFICACY OF CCTV SURVEILLANCE ...... 26 Research Findings...... 27 Problems with CCTV...... 28 Operational Issues ...... 28 Privacy Issues ...... 28
PAGE I BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO TABLE OF CONTENTS PASSENGER SECURITY
CONCLUSIONS ...... 29 PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK...... 31 QUEENSLAND RAIL AS SECURITY MANAGER...... 31 Audit of Queensland Rail’s Security Policy by Queensland Transport ...... 31 Trainsafe Package...... 32 CCTV Surveillance at Stations and on Trains...... 33 Lighting and Fencing Upgrades at Stations...... 34 Car Park Improvements ...... 34 Extended Station Staffing Hours...... 35 Guardian Trains ...... 35 Duress Button Trials...... 35 A Better Defined Working Relationship Between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service ...... 36 Legislative Changes ...... 36 Expenditure Breakdown for Trainsafe...... 36 Other Security Initiatives ...... 36 Train Watch ...... 36 Queensland Rail Citytrain School Education Program...... 37 Station Core Zone Trial - Ferny Grove Line ...... 37 Roving Communications for Train Guards...... 37 Decentralising Citytrain Protective Services Staff ...... 38 Improved On-time Running of Trains ...... 38 THE ROLE OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE...... 38 The Police Rail Squad...... 39 Memorandum of Understanding Between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service...... 39 ISSUES FOR QUEENSLAND RAIL AND THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE...... 40 Development of Crime Prevention Policies by Queensland Rail...... 40 Allocating Priorities for Security Expenditure...... 41 Crime Prevention Approaches...... 43 Coordination and Control ...... 44 Informing the Public...... 46 Police Numbers...... 47 The Effectiveness of CCTV Surveillance...... 49 Inquiry Evidence That is Supportive of CCTV ...... 49 Inquiry Evidence Not Supportive of CCTV ...... 49 The Committee’s Conclusions on CCTV...... 51 Viability of Late Night Train Services...... 52 CONCLUSIONS ...... 53 PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS...... 55 INTRODUCTION ...... 55 WHO ARE AUTHORISED OFFICERS?...... 55 HOW MANY AUTHORISED OFFICERS ARE THERE? ...... 56 Private Security Guards...... 57 Conclusion...... 58 WHAT ARE THEIR POWERS?...... 58 Power to Require Name and Address ...... 58 Power to Serve Infringement Notices ...... 58 Power to Search and Inspect ...... 59 Seizure Powers...... 59 Power to Remove Offenders ...... 60 Reasonable Force ...... 60 Fare Evasion ...... 60 Loaded Carriage...... 60 Creating a Disturbance...... 61 Drugs and Alcohol...... 61 Soiled Person ...... 61 Trespass ...... 61 Power of Arrest...... 62 General Police Powers ...... 64
PAGE II BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO TABLE OF CONTENTS PASSENGER SECURITY
CONCLUSIONS ...... 64 General...... 64 Seizure Powers...... 65 Move-on Powers ...... 66 Arrest ...... 67 PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES...... 69 INTRODUCTION ...... 69 GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM ...... 69 Possession of Graffiti Implement...... 70 Aiding and Abetting Graffiti...... 70 Penalties for Graffiti ...... 71 CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO RAILWAYS...... 71 Intent to Injure or Endanger Personal Safety ...... 71 Intent to Damage a Railway ...... 71 Intentional Acts by Omission ...... 72 Interference with Railway Equipment ...... 73 Dangerous Goods...... 73 PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES ...... 73 Litter ...... 73 Nuisance Behaviour...... 73 General Nuisance Provisions...... 74 Injurious Behaviour - Proper Entrance and Exit...... 74 Travel Not Allowed on Certain Parts of Train...... 74 Alcohol...... 74 Animals...... 74 CONCLUSION ...... 75 PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION ...... 77 Personal Safety on Citytrain...... 77 Preventing Crime...... 78 Security and Policing on Citytrain...... 78 Powers of Authorised Officers...... 79 Railway Offences ...... 79 REFERENCES...... 81
EXHIBITS ...... 85
APPENDIX A — CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS...... 89
APPENDIX B — LIST OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED...... 91
APPENDIX C — WITNESSES AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ...... 93
APPENDIX D — POWERS OF RAILWAY STAFF...... 95
APPENDIX E — CONDUCT ON RAILWAYS...... 107
APPENDIX F — ASSAULTS AGAINST PASSENGERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS FROM CITYTRAIN STATION AND ENVIRONS REPORTED TO POLICE, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 124
APPENDIX G — CITYTRAIN NETWORK MAP...... 128
PAGE III BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO TABLE OF CONTENTS PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE IV BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES PASSENGER SECURITY
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
PAGE NO.
FIGURES
Figure 1: Assaults against passengers reported to police involving the Citytrain network, by age 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 12
Figure 2: Assault offenders by age, for assaults on railways that were reported to police, Queensland 1.7.94 - 31.12.97 ...... 12
Figure 3: Cycle of fear ...... 17
Figure 4: Crime prevention approaches...... 22
TABLES
Table 1: Citytrain rollingstock by type as at 1 December 1997 ...... 5
Table 2: Scheduled weekly Citytrain services by week days as at 3 March 1997...... 5
Table 3: Suburban railway in Australia - key attributes ...... 6
Table 4: Crimes against the person committed against passengers and property involving the Citytrain network by category and year, Queensland 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 9
Table 5: Assault victims by gender, day of the week and time of assault, for reported assaults involving railways, Queensland, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97 ...... 11
Table 6: Offenders by year and gender for assaults involving railways that were reported to police, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 13
Table 7: Selected crimes for the state and crimes involving railways, Queensland, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 14
Table 8: The risk of assault for Citytrain passengers, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97...... 15
Table 9: Trainsafe package budget allocation ...... 37
Table 10: Establishment figures of Queensland Rail staff to be registered as Authorised Persons upon completion of training, March 1998 ...... 57
PAGE V BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE VI BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO ABBREVIATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITIONS ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AIC Australian Institute of Criminology ACT Australian Capital Territory ARA Australian Retailers Association CCTV Close Circuit Television CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CJC Criminal Justice Commission CRISP Crime Reporting Information System for Police CSE Customer Service Employees EMU Electronic Multiple Unit ERC Economic Research Centre FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation IMU Interurban Multiple Unit LGAQ Local Government Association of Queensland MTR Mass Transit Railway NSWLRC New South Wales Law Reform Commission PCNSW Privacy Commission New South Wales PSA Passenger Service Assistants PTA Passenger Transport Act 1994 (SA) PTC Public Transport Corporation QPS Queensland Police Service QR Queensland Rail QT Queensland Transport RAC Rail Access Corporation RPO Revenue Protection Officers SMU Suburban Multiple Unit SRA State Rail Authority TA Transport Act 1983 (VIC) TIA Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (QLD)
PAGE VII BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO ABBREVIATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE VIII BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE NO.
RECOMMENDATION 1 ...... 8 That the Police Rail Squad and Queensland Rail explore the feasibility of a single common database to record crimes and other security incidents involving the Citytrain network as well as other railway networks in Queensland.
RECOMMENDATION 2 ...... 41 That Queensland Rail: seeks expert independent advice on security issues; involves the Police Rail Squad in the development of its security policies; and plans for all major initiatives to be externally evaluated.
RECOMMENDATION 3 ...... 42 That Queensland Rail prioritises station upgrades to enhance security based on indicators of risk at stations, rather than passenger throughput at stations.
RECOMMENDATION 4 ...... 42 That Queensland Rail seeks input from community groups and members of the public in its determination of priorities for security upgrades on the network through a public consultation process.
RECOMMENDATION 5 ...... 42 That Queensland Rail provides, as a minimum, the following facilities at its stations to assist passengers: safe access to platforms, waiting areas that are clean and well lit, information on train services and major delays; the means to summons help in an emergency; and a public telephone to arrange other connecting transport.
RECOMMENDATION 6 ...... 42 That Queensland Rail consults the Police Rail Squad to identify and prioritise stations warranting security upgrades.
RECOMMENDATION 7 ...... 44 That Queensland Rail works with other government agencies, local authorities and community groups to encourage social crime prevention solutions to security issues on the Citytrain network.
PAGE IX BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
RECOMMENDATION 8 ...... 44 That Queensland Rail undertakes Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) audits of Citytrain stations to maintain and improve those elements of design and the network environment, which enhance personal safety.
RECOMMENDATION 9 ...... 46 That Queensland Rail and Queensland Transport finalize their strategic security plan for the Citytrain network and clarify their respective roles and responsibilities for security on the network.
RECOMMENDATION 10 ...... 47 That Queensland Rail publishes information on the risk of crime on the Citytrain Network; guidelines to improve passenger safety and security; information on the security initiatives that have been undertaken on the network; the roles and functions of the various security providers on the network; and the location and use of equipment at stations and on trains to enhance security.
RECOMMENDATION 11 ...... 48 That the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail review the staffing levels of the Police Rail Squad to ensure that the squad has sufficient officers to provide the ‘high profile uniformed policing presence’ stipulated in the memorandum of understanding between the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail.
RECOMMENDATION 12 ...... 52 That the efficacy of Queensland Rail’s Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance program for the Citytrain network be externally evaluated. This evaluation should include: an examination of the costs and benefits of the CCTV systems (capital and on-going costs); a pre and post-evaluation of the deterrence value of CCTV at stations; and a review of the general operation of the system.
RECOMMENDATION 13 ...... 52 That Queensland Rail provides signage at Citytrain stations and in trains notifying passengers of the use of CCTV surveillance.
RECOMMENDATION 14 ...... 52 That Queensland Rail Reviews its protocols for managing, auditing and using video surveillance evidence captured by CCTV cameras on the Citytrain network.
PAGE X BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
RECOMMENDATION 15 ...... 53 That Queensland Transport examines its approach to funding late night train services on the Citytrain network and considers other public transport options.
RECOMMENDATION 16 ...... 68 That section 34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 be repealed.
RECOMMENDATION 17 ...... 68 That all railway officers who are authorised persons under section 116 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 receive training in alternative dispute resolution, conflict management and negotiation to enable them to enforce reasonable behavioural standards on the railway with minimal police involvement.
RECOMMENDATION 18 ...... 68 That all authorised persons under section 116 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 receive training that is appropriate to the enforcement powers that they may exercise.
RECOMMENDATION 19 ...... 68 That Queensland Transport review the powers of authorised officers and private security guards on railways in consultation with Queensland Rail. This review should consider extending the prescribed powers of authorised officers and the establishment of railway enforcement officers with responsibilities and powers similar to those exercised by WestRail’s Special Constables.
RECOMMENDATION 20 ...... 76 That Queensland Transport consider amending section 141 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to introduce infringement notice penalties for minor offences such as spitting, offensive language and behaving in an offensive manner.
PAGE XI BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE XII BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION
THE TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE
1. The Travelsafe Committee of the 48th Parliament was appointed by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 15 September 1995. This resolution was amended on 18 April 1996 during the second session of the 48th Parliament.
2. Under the new resolution the committee monitors, investigates and reports on:-
(a) issues affecting road safety including the causes of road crashes and measures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries and economic costs to the community;
(b) the safety of passenger transport services, and measures aimed at reducing the incidence of related deaths and injuries; and
(c) measures for the enhancement of public transport in Queensland and reducing dependence on private motor vehicles as the predominant mode of transport.
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY
3. This is the committee’s first inquiry into railway safety. In this inquiry the committee invited submissions on:-
· the safety of the track and signalling; · passenger safety and security issues at stations; and · safety and security issues on the rollingstock.
4. This inquiry was initiated for several reasons. The committee was keen to examine the issue of personal safety. The fear of victimisation on public transport is a key factor in falling public transport patronage around the world. At the commencement of this inquiry Queensland Rail’s customer surveys indicated that it was the first or second most common factor in people’s decisions not to travel by Citytrain.
5. The committee is also committed to reducing the dependence on private motor vehicles for regular commuter trips in the greater Brisbane area. The Citytrain Rail network is the hub of the Greater Brisbane public transport system, and there are distinct environmental and economic imperatives for it to be better utilised in lieu of private cars.
PAGE 1 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION PASSENGER SECURITY
6. Prior to this inquiry, passengers and other members of the public were not properly consulted about safety and security issues on the Citytrain network. Queensland Rail has implemented strategies that affect passengers with limited prior consultation with passengers or the organisations representing them. Similarly, there was no public consultation by Queensland Transport for its safety audit of Queensland Rail in 1996. Consultation is essential to identify issues that warrant attention, and to ensure that strategies that are implemented to resolve them are working.
SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
7. Because of the wide scope of the inquiry, the committee has reported separately on: risks to passengers posed by the Citytrain network’s infrastructure and train operations (Report no. 23 tabled 13 December 1997); and issues affecting the personal safety of passengers. This report covers personal safety issues on the railways including personal and property crimes, perceptions of crime and crime prevention measures.
8. The report is divided into eight parts. Part 1 outlines the committee’s terms of reference, the background and scope of the inquiry and the inquiry process. Part 2 presents a brief overview of the Citytrain network and provides key systems attributes for all Australian suburban railways. Part 3 examines the incidence of crimes affecting passengers and the risk of victimisation. Part 4 discusses crime prevention on railways. Part 5 examines the adequacy of current security management and crime prevention strategies on the Citytrain network. Parts 6 and 7 compare the powers of authorised officers and prescribed railway offences in each state. Part 8 presents the committee’s conclusions.
INQUIRY PROCESS
9. The inquiry into passenger safety and security on Brisbane’s Citytrain network was launched in June 1996 with advertisements placed in major newspapers announcing the inquiry and calling for written submissions. A copy of the advertisement is shown in Appendix A. Notices about the inquiry and inviting public submissions were placed at Citytrain stations and distributed to passengers by Queensland Rail.
10. Forty-four written submissions were received. A list of those who made submissions is at Appendix B. 8 submissions were provided by government agencies; 14 by non-government organisations; and 23 were lodged by individuals. The committee’s research included literature searches through: the State Library; The Queensland Parliamentary Library; the Australian Institute of Criminology Library; Queensland Transport Library; and the Public Transport Corporation (Melbourne) Library.
11. The committee held two public hearings in Brisbane on 27 March 1997 and 28 May 1997. Witnesses were examined on their written submissions and other issues under investigation. A list of those who appeared is at Appendix C.
PAGE 2 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION PASSENGER SECURITY
RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTERS
12. This Report makes recommendations for the Government to implement.
“PART 5 - MINISTERIAL RESPONSES TO REPORTS’ of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 requires the responsible Minister or Ministers to respond to recommendations contained in the committee’s Reports.
Subsections 2 to 6 of section (24) of the Act state:-
(2) The Minister who is responsible for the issue the subject of the report must provide the Legislative Assembly with a response.
(3) The response must set out-
(a) any recommendations to be adopted, and the way and time within which they will be carried out; and
(b) any recommendations not to be adopted and the reasons for not adopting them.
(4) The Minister must table the response within 3 months after the report is tabled.
(5) If a Minister cannot comply with subsection (4), the Minister must-
(a) within 3 months after the report is tabled, table an interim response and the Minister’s reasons for not complying within 3 months; and
(b) within 6 months after the report is tabled, table the response.
(6) If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, the Minister must give the response (or interim response and reasons) to the Clerk of the Parliament for tabling on the next sitting day.
PAGE 3 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 1 ~ INTRODUCTION PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 4 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 2 ~ THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 2 ~ THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK
13. Citytrain is a business group of Queensland Rail which is a corporation owned by the Queensland Government. It was created in July 1995 out of what was Queensland Rail’s Passenger Division. The Citytrain network continues to expand with additional stations opened on the Gold Coast Line since the committee’s first report for this inquiry. It now consists of 138 stations and approximately 377 route kilometres. This is comprised of a suburban network covering 118 stations and over 199.5 route kilometres, and an interurban network of 20 stations and 177.25 route kilometres. The average distance between stations is 2.8 kilometres. A stylised map showing the extent of the network is at Appendix H.
14. Tables 1 and 2 give details of the Citytrain electric train fleet and scheduled weekly services. Additional services are provided by Queensland Rail to cater for increased travel demand from key community events.
Table 1: Citytrain rollingstock by type as at 1 December 1997
ELECTRIC ROLLINGSTOCK NUMBER IN THE FLEET Electric multiple units (EMUs) 88 three-car sets Suburban multiple units (SMUs) 12 three-car sets Interurban multiple units (IMUs) 4 three-car sets
Source: Queensland Rail submission
15. All Citytrain’s electric trains were built by Walkers Ltd in Maryborough. These are mostly Electric Multiple Units supplied between 1979, when the electrification of the Brisbane suburban network was completed, and 1985. Due to shortages of electric rollingstock, a limited number of services are still provided using SX class, diesel-electric train sets and diesel rail motors. These are due to be taken out of service with the delivery of additional electric rollingstock in 1998.
Table 2: Scheduled weekly Citytrain services by week days as at 3 March 1997
DAYS OF THE WEEK NUMBER OF SCHEDULED SERVICES Monday to Thursday 724 Friday 767 Saturday 583 Sunday/public holidays 475
Source: Queensland Rail submission
PAGE 5 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 2 ~ THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
16. Citytrain currently provides 4,760 scheduled services weekly. 78 percent of these services are provided during the working week from Monday to Friday. In 1996/97, there were 41.6 million passenger journeys on the Citytrain network based on ticket sales, with an average of 163 paid passengers per service. Adult journeys accounted for 60 percent of these journeys, school students 18 percent, other students 10 percent, pensioners 8 percent and children other than students 4 percent.
17. Table 3 provides a comparison of the Citytrain network and other state suburban rail networks in Australia. (submission 12)
Table 3: Suburban railway in Australia - key attributes
BROAD SYSTEM STATISTICS QLD NSW VIC SA WA Network length (route km) 372 1018 330 125 93 Number of stations 132 296 197 80 57 Annual patronage (1995/96 Qld; 1994/95 all 38.2m 249.6m 226m 8.5m 16.7m others) Number of services per week 4,760 13,015 8,643 860 4,520 Average distance between stations (km) 2.8 3.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 Average patronage per service 154 369 503 190 71
Source: Queensland Rail submission
18. From the table, Queensland’s Citytrain network is the second largest suburban network in Australia after CityRail in New South Wales (Sydney) in terms of network length. It is also the third largest after CityRail and the Met in Victoria (Melbourne) in terms of numbers of stations, weekly services and passenger journeys. On average, Citytrain has the second lowest patronage per service.
19. Citytrain passenger services share track with services operated by Queensland Rail’s Traveltrain, Freight, Coal and Minerals groups, heritage trains, interstate freight services operated by the National Rail Corporation and the Sydney-Brisbane XPT express passenger service operated by State Rail of New South Wales.
PAGE 6 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN
20. This section examines reported crimes on railways in Queensland, including the Citytrain network, and compares levels with crimes reported for the state. The risk of victimisation, the fear of crime and the factors which contribute to this fear are also discussed.
SOURCES OF DATA ON CRIME ON RAILWAYS
21. There is little historical data available on the extent of crime on railways or other public transport in Australia. Since 1993, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has collected data on crimes on public transport. Public transport in this context includes railways, buses, taxis and trams. In 1995, violent crimes on public transport accounted for 6.6 percent of violent crime in Australia (ABS National Crime Statistics 1996). Crimes involving railways are not separated from crimes involving other public transport, nor are crime against passengers.
22. In Queensland, crimes and security incidents on railways are recorded separately by the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail. What they record is different and their databases are incompatible. There are no official, published statistics.
23. Crimes reported to the Queensland Police Service are recorded on the service’s Crime Reporting Information System for Police (CRISP) database established in 1994. CRISP records provide the only source of comprehensive data on security incidents (crimes) on or near railways in Queensland. Police record crimes and alleged crimes on the basis that an offence has been committed. Individual CRISP records are detailed and include: the age and sex of the victim; the location, date and time of the incident; the date and time the incident was reported and investigated; the nature of the offences committed; the status of the investigation; information about the offenders; the names of the police units and officers involved in the investigation; and a short textual summary of the incident. Reports of anti-social behaviour such as incivility and intimidation are generally not recorded by police unless an offence has been committed. (submission 31)
24. Since 1995, Queensland Rail has been using a computer database to record security incidents reported by railway staff, passengers and other members of the public. Citytrain’s Protective Service staff maintain their own, separate record of incidents involving the Citytrain network. Security incidents recorded by Queensland Rail include crimes of which staff have been notified, and non-criminal acts such as incivilities, threats and suspicious behaviour that would not be recorded by the police. For example, ‘verbal assaults’ of railway staff by passengers are recorded by Queensland Rail as assaults, however, these are not assaults as defined by police. The committee recognises that these records on non-criminal acts could be a valuable tool in identifying problems on the railway, if they were recorded consistently. The significance of exposure to minor incivilities in generating a fear of crime is discussed later in this part.
25. The reporting of safety incidents on all railways is problematic. This was discussed by the committee in its first report from this inquiry, report no. 23, Brisbane’s Citytrain Network -
PAGE 7 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
Part One - Safety of the Rail System and Infrastructure. Queensland Rail acknowledges the benefits to be gained by accurate records in research and policy development and is working to improve reporting by its staff. Defining a problem is fundamental to its management.
26. The lack of a single, accurate record of crimes and other security incidents on the Citytrain network is a major problem. It impedes a proper understanding of the problems that are occurring and limits any objective assessment. This is acknowledged in the Queensland Police Service submission. The lack of quality information reduces the Police Rail Squad’s effectiveness in addressing crime problems. It also prevents the squad from evaluating the Citytrain security system as a whole and the success of initiatives and strategies that have been implemented. (submission 31) The police told the committee that it is necessary to rationalise the (data) systems within Queensland Rail in conjunction with the Queensland Police Service to minimise duplication and to ensure reliable data is produced. (submission 31) The committee agrees.
27. Queensland Rail and the police exchange data regularly in an attempt to overcome data problems, but this is ineffective. The data being exchanged has insufficient detail to enable incidents common to both databases to be identified. Maintaining two or three separate databases is also inefficient. The committee believes that the resources spent on maintaining separate, incomplete databases would be better spent maintaining one complete and comprehensive set of data, and urges that the feasibility of a single common database be explored by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION 1
That the Police Rail Squad and Queensland Rail explore the feasibility of a single common database to record crimes and other security incidents involving the Citytrain network as well as other railway networks in Queensland.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
POLICE STATISTICS ON REPORTED CRIMES
28. This section examines police data for reported crimes for an indication of the level of crimes against passengers occurring on the Citytrain network. As with the reporting of crimes in the rest of the community, it is likely that large numbers of crimes on or near the railways are not reported to police. A state-wide survey of victims of crime in 1995 found that 45 percent of robberies, 63.5 percent of assaults and 83.8 percent of sexual assaults in Queensland may be unreported (ABS 1996).
29. The Police Rail Squad and the Police Information Centre provided the committee with CRISP data on crimes related to railways. This data was extracted by searching the database for crime records containing the words ‘railway’ or ‘train’. Using this base data, the crimes the Citytrain network were isolated by examining individual records and eliminating irrelevant incidents. For crimes against the person, there were 1225 positive matches. Crimes against passengers were identified by eliminating crimes against persons whose occupations were listed as police or railway-related. Despite these efforts, the committee could not identify precisely which crimes were occurred on the Citytrain Network and were against passengers.
PAGE 8 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
30. The committee recognises that crimes committed on Citytrain premises may be unrelated to the operation of the network. This is because stations in the Citytrain operating area are not used exclusively by Citytrain services and passengers. Police records do not routinely identify the railway involved or distinguish crimes that have occurred on trains from crimes at stations. For crimes on moving trains, CRISP records may list the last, next or nearest station as the crime location depending on the officer who documented the incident. Under the circumstances and in the absence of better information, the data that the committee has used provides a reasonable approximation. Officers from the Police Rail Squad have previously examined railway crimes identified on this basis from the CRISP database. They concluded that the value of figures for offences outside the Citytrain operating area was insignificant. (exhibit 4a) Crimes on the CRISP database may also still be under investigation, and could be bogus.
31. Table 4 presents an overview of selected crimes against the person and crimes against property involving the Citytrain network that occurred during the period from 1 July 1994 to 31 December 1997. During the three and a half years from July 1994 to December 1997, the number of reported crimes on or near railways declined by 28 percent. The committee notes that the number of crimes reduced for most of the categories examined. The following sections discuss the statistics for homicides, assaults, robberies and motor vehicle thefts. Table 4: Crimes against the person committed against passengers and property involving the Citytrain network by category and year, Queensland 1.7.94 - 31.12.97.
NUMBER OF REPORTED OFFENCES
CATEGORY* 94/95 95/96 96/97 JULY - TOTAL ANNUAL DEC. 97 AVERAGE Murder (1111) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attempted Murder (1121) 2 1 0 1 4 1.4 Serious Assault (1211,1221,1222, 1223) 84 77 65 30 256 73.1 Other Non-Sexual Assault (1291,1292,1293, 1294,2123) 59 53 56 21 189 54 Assault as a Secondary Offence 20 4 14 2 40 11.4 Rape (1361) 0 2 0 2 4 1.1 Attempted Rape (1362) 0 0 1 0 1 0.3 Other Sexual Assault (1363,1364,1393,1394) 19 25 29 12 85 24.3 Robbery, Armed (2111) 22 14 23 10 69 19.7 Robbery, Un-armed (2121,2122,2124) 39 72 61 32 204 58.3 Offences Against Liberty (1911,1912) 3 0 2 0 5 1.4 Motor Vehicle Theft (3511) 1005 906 588 239 2738 782
Source: Based on unofficial statistics provided by the Queensland Police Service from its CRISP database 1998 Note: * the police crime codes are listed against each category
PAGE 9 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
Assaults
32. 548 assaults against passengers on the Citytrain network were reported to police during the period. These included four attempted murders, 256 serious assaults, 189 other non- assaults, 90 sexual assaults and 39 secondary assaults where the assaults were secondary offence.
33. From the table, it can be seen that there were no murders and four attempted murders committed against Citytrain passengers that were reported to police during the period. All four attempted murders occurred at Citytrain stations within the Brisbane Metropolitan Area. In all cases, the offenders have been apprehended by police. These crimes represent an extremely small proportion of crimes against the person committed against passengers (0.4 percent).
34. 256 serious assaults were recorded for railways during the period, with an average of 73.1 offences per annum. The number of reported serious assaults declined 29 percent over the three and a half years.
35. There were 90 reported sexual assaults committed against passengers involving the Citytrain network. On average, there were 25.7 sexual assaults involving railways per annum. There were 4 reported rapes and one reported, attempted rape during the three and a half years examined. The remainder of the reported sexual assaults were largely non-violent incidents such as wilful obscene exposures (60 incidents). Rapes and attempted rapes represent 0.6 of one percent of all reported assaults against passengers on the network.
36. Appendix F presents a station by station breakdown of reported assaults against passengers that occurred at or near stations on the Citytrain network.
Robbery
37. There were 273 reported robbery offences during the period with an average of 78 robberies per annum. Armed Robberies, where the offender may have used a weapon, comprised a quarter of all robberies recorded during the period. At the end of 1997, the incidence of these robberies had declined by 9 percent compared to 1994/95. The incidence of unarmed robbery, however , increased (64 percent). While the sample size is small, it is likely that there has been a significant increase.
Motor Vehicle Thefts
38. From the table, there were 2,738 reported Stolen Motor Vehicle from at, or near, Citytrain railway stations during the 42 month period examined. These include thefts of vehicles parked at railway car parks or in streets around stations. An average of 782 motor vehicle thefts were reported per annum. Comparing the annual totals for thefts during the period examined, it appears that the number of motor vehicle thefts reduced by 52.4 percent by the end of 1997. This is an excellent result. Appendix F presents a breakdown of motor vehicle thefts from stations on the network during the period.
PAGE 10 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
Assault Victims and Offenders
39. The committee was told by the Police Railway Squad that assaults are the primary offences committed against the person on railways and are at the very core of personal safety (Snr Sgt Limbach, transcript page 1). The committee has therefore examined these crimes in greater detail. The following table and figures are based on data taken from the CRISP database.
Victims of Assaults Involving Railways in Queensland
40. Table 5 presents information on the gender of assault victims where this was recorded by police, and the days of the week and times when reported assaults occurred.
Table 5: Assault victims by gender, day of the week and time of assault, for reported assaults involving railways, Queensland, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
Description 94/95 95/96 96/97 JULY - TOTAL MEAN DEC. 97 GENDER Male 96 (61%) 80 (54%) 76 (62%) 32 (53%) 284 58% Female 62 (39%) 69 (46%) 46 (38%) 28 (47%) 205 42% DAY (PERCENT OF THE TOTAL) Monday 13 11 10 9 11 Tuesday 13 16 16 15 15 Wednesday 17 15 13 11 14 Thursday 15 14 17 20 16 Friday 22 14 19 16 18 Saturday 13 20 12 20 16 Sunday 7 10 13 9 10 TIME (PERCENT OF THE TOTAL) 0000-0600 11 14 5 4 9 0601-0930 10 8 10 15 10 0931-1500 18 24 21 23 21 1501-1830 26 30 29 32 29 1831-2400 35 24 35 26 31
Source: Based on information provided by the Queensland Police Service from its CRISP database 1998
41. From the table, 58 percent of reported Citytrain passengers assaults were against males. A third (34 percent) of reported assaults occurred on either a Friday or a Saturday. 29 percent of reported assaults occurred between 3.00pm and 6.30pm (1501-1830) and 31 percent occurred between 6.30pm and midnight (1831-2400).
42. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the age of the victims at the time of the assault for assaults that were reported to police.
PAGE 11 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
Figure 1: Assaults against passengers reported to police involving the Citytrain network, by age 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
70
60
50
40
30
20 Number of assaults 10
0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 62 64 66 72 76 Age of assault victims in years
Source: Based on information provided by the Queensland Police Service from its CRISP database 1998
43. Figure 1 shows the predominance of assaults against young people in the 12 to 18 age range, ie. the age range for high school students. 297 assaults were against persons in this age group and accounted for 54 percent of the total reported assaults against passengers involving the Citytrain network. The age at which persons were most often assaulted was 16 years. From the figure, persons aged 60 years and older accounted for 1.6 percent of all reported assaults.
Assault Offenders
44. Figure 2 presents information on the age of persons who committed assaults involving railways. The committee was unable to obtain specific data for offenders who assaulted passengers on the Citytrain network, though notes that assaults on Citytrain account for most of the assaults involving railways in Queensland.
Figure 2: Assault offenders by age, for assaults on railways that were reported to police, Queensland 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Number of assaults 20 10 0 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 62 64 66 72 76 Age of assault offenders in years
Source: Based on information provided by the Queensland Police Service from its CRISP database 1998.
PAGE 12 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
45. Figure 2 suggests the predominance of assault offenders aged between 12 and 18 years, as with assault victims. From the figure, 445 offenders were aged between 12 and 18 years at the time of the offence. This is almost two thirds (65 percent) of all assault offenders whose age was known to police.
46. Table 6 presents a gender breakdown for offenders for assaults involving railways in Queensland. As with data on the age of offenders, the committee was unable to obtain data specifically for offenders who assaulted passengers on the Citytrain network.
Table 6: Offenders by year and gender for assaults involving railways that were reported to police, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
PERIOD MALE FEMALE 94/95 136 36 95/96 142 34 96/97 183 32 July - Dec. 97 116 24 Total 577 (82 percent) 126 (18 percent)
Source: Based on information provided by the Queensland Police Service from its CRISP database 1998.
47. From the table, 82 percent of persons who committed assaults involving railways during the period were male, and 18 percent female.
RISK OF CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION
48. The committee sought to examine the relative risk of crimes on the railways with risks in the rest of the community. The officer in charge of the Police Rail Squad told the committee during the inquiry that the amount of crime on the network that is reported ‘...is less per population than what you would find in the suburbs.’ (Snr Sgt Limbach, transcript page 4) The committee understands that this was calculated by comparing crimes involving the railways per passenger journey with crimes per capita in South East Queensland.
49. Mr O’Rourke, Chief Executive of Queensland Rail, went further and told the committee that the police statistics suggest that ‘…the risk of assault in the broader community is two and a half times greater than what they are in the Citytrain's network.’ (Mr O’Rourke, transcript page 53) Mr Kevin Band, Queensland Rail’s General Manager for Safety went still further and told the committee: -
…Early indications are that you are five times more likely to be assaulted at home and about eight times more likely to be assaulted in a shopping mall than on our stations. (Mr Band, transcript page 99)
50. The committee could not draw meaningful comparisons between risks on railways and risks in other settings such as shopping centres in the absence of data on relative exposure such as average amount of time spent by people in these places. The committee notes, however, that the amount of crime and the likelihood of being assaulted on Citytrain should generally be less per capita than in the suburbs. This is because not all people use the railways and, for those who do, the time spent on the network is likely to be a small proportion of their day. The committee has calculated that commuters who make eleven hourly trips per week on the network, spend less than 7 percent of their week on the network.
PAGE 13 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
51. Queensland Rail reports passenger assault risks on a per capita basis as a measure of performance in its Corporate Safety Reports series. This measure is obtained by comparing passenger assaults recorded on its Safety Incident Database with the approximate population of Queensland (3.4 million in 1997/98) to produce a rate of assaults per million head of population. The committee questions the validity of this measure of assault risks to passengers. Firstly, the Safety Incident Database contains only the incidents that are reported to Queensland Rail and excludes the assaults that are reported to police. Secondly, expressing these incidents in terms of state population is erroneous, as only a proportion of the state population has access to, and uses, the Citytrain network. From Queensland Rail’s own information, the average number of passengers on Citytrain is 140,000 during weekdays and 30,000 on weekends. (exhibit 1q)
52. The committee urges that a more meaningful measure of assault risk to passengers be used by Queensland Rail for corporate performance reporting, such as assaults against passengers that are reported to police per passenger journey.
Comparison with Crimes Recorded in Queensland
53. To place the recorded crimes on railways in perspective, the committee compared the incidence of reported crimes involving railways with crimes reported for the state as a whole. Table 8 shows a comparison for selected crime categories.
Table 7: Selected crimes for the state and crimes involving railways, Queensland, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
RAILWAY RELATED CRIME STATE RAILWAY CRIME AS A PROPORTION OF CRIMES FOR THE STATE Murder 187 0 0 Attempted Murder 361 4 1.1% Serious Assault 28827 337 1.2% Other Assault 19646 281 1.4% Sexual Assault (all) 12368 82 0.7% Rape 1447 4 0.3% Attempted Rape 227 1 0.4% Other Sexual Assault 10694 77 0.7% Robbery (all) 6010 225 3.7% Robbery Under Arms 2808 59 2.1% Deprivation of Liberty/ 6892 75 1.1% Dangerous Acts Abductions 197 21 1.0% Motor Vehicle Theft 55978 2692 4.8% Steal From Motor 75373 1782 2.4% Vehicle Graffiti 13739 N/A N/A Wilful Damage 124932 N/A N/A
Source: Based on CRISP data from the Queensland Police Service 1998
PAGE 14 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
54. From the table, ‘railways’ as a crime factor during the period examined was most significant in relation to ‘motor vehicle theft’. For these crimes, it accounted for 4.8 percent of the state total. ‘Steal from motor vehicle’ offences involving railways accounted for 2.4 percent of offences for the state. Similarly, ‘robbery’ offences on railways accounted for 3.7 percent of all robberies in the state during the period and ‘robbery under arms’ on railways accounted for 2.4 percent. ‘Serious assaults’ involving railways accounted for 1.2 percent, ‘other assaults’ 1.4 percent, and ‘sexual assaults’ 0.7 percent of the state totals for these crimes.
55. The committee notes, in particular, that serious assaults, sexual assaults and motor vehicle theft involving railways reduced significantly during the period examined. This was contrary to increases in these crimes recorded for the state as a whole.
THE RISK OF PASSENGERS BEING ASSAULTED ON THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK
56. The committee sought to quantify the risk of assaults per passenger and per journey on the Citytrain network. For this, it used Queensland Rail’s Citytrain ticket sales as a proxy for patronage and the CRISP data on assaults, less assaults committed against Queensland Rail employees or police on the network, to approximate assaults against passengers. There were 198 assaults against railway employees and police, and 544 assaults against other persons likely to be passengers. These passenger assaults comprised: 167 in 1994/95; 157 in 1995/96; 155 in 1996/97; and 65 in the first half of 97/98. Table 8 presents these assaults against passengers, passenger journeys and estimated risks to passengers of assault per journey for the period examined.
Table 8: The risk of assault for Citytrain passengers, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97.
PERIOD 94/95 95/96 96/97 JULY - DEC. 97 Reported Assaults 167 157 155 65 Passenger Journeys 37,020,706 39,187,039 41,558,438 20,084,000 Reported Assaults per 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.34 100,000 passenger (1/222,000 (1/250,000 (1/268,000 (1/295,000 journeys passenger passenger passenger passenger journeys) journeys) journeys) journeys)
Source: Based on CRISP data from the Queensland Police Service 1998 and data provided by Queensland Rail on patronage of the Citytrain network.
57. From table 8, the rate of passenger assaults per journey is likely to be extremely low and declining with annualised rates ranging from 0.70 to 0.58 assaults per 100,000 passenger journeys during the period examined. The average risk over the period examined was 0.39, or 1/253,000 passenger journeys. For a regular commuter who travels 480 trips on the network annually (ten trips weekly for 48 weeks per year) this suggests a likelihood, on average, of being assaulted once every 528 years. In practice, the risk of assault is dependent on the age and sex of the passenger, the location, and the day and time of the journey. For commuters who travel during peak periods on the network, the risk of assault is likely to be considerably less than these figures would indicate.
PAGE 15 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
58. The committee could not quantify the effects of time and day on assault risks on the Citytrain network because of a lack of detailed patronage data. Queensland Rail told the committee it could not provide the data due to Citytrain’s open ticketing system. This prevents Queensland Rail from monitoring the mass movements of passengers travelling on pre-purchased tickets such as weekly or return tickets, on different days and at different times. In the absence of this data, the committee is also unable to comment on whether changes in passengers’ travel preferences over the period may have contributed to reductions in the number of assaults that were recorded against passengers.
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME
59. At the commencement of this inquiry, Queensland Rail’s market research showed that personal safety concerns were the most significant factor in people’s decisions not to use the Citytrain network. In a 1997 survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 33 percent of respondents in Queensland said they felt unsafe or very unsafe travelling on public transport at night (ABS 1997). The public’s perception of crime is an important determinant of people’s usage of public transport. These perceptions may be influenced by a range of factors, and arise despite actual risks being low. For Citytrain, these factors are often outside of Queensland Rail’s control. Fear of crime continues to afflict far more people than are actually at risk.
Factors which Influence the Fear of Crime
60. Researchers have examined the factors which contribute to the fear or unrealistic perception of crime.
61. From a study of the fear of crime on public transport in New York, Carr & Spring (1993) report a number of contributing factors:
(a) the unclean condition of vehicles, stations, and bus/tram stops; (b) the intimidating effect of graffiti on the system; (c) exposure to often rowdy, offensive groups; and (d) the role of the media in overstating fear-generating incidents occurring both on the transport system and in the community generally.
62. Carr & Spring (1993) devised a diagram (figure 3) to depict the cycle by which this fear perpetuates itself.
63. Other researchers have examined the issues in different settings and arrived at similar conclusions. The public’s perceived fear or risk is thought to be strongly influenced by: unreported violence; harassment or threat (Chappell 1995); manifestations of incivility such as vandalism, graffiti, litter, and rowdy, offensive conduct (Grabosky, 1995; 25); and drunkenness, even if there is little evidence of higher order offences such as robbery and assault (La Grange & others 1992). The committee was told previous personal experience and the known experiences of others can also influence people’s fear of violent crime such as assault. (Mr Draper, transcript page 29)
PAGE 16 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
Figure 3: Cycle of fear
Reduction in the number of people travelling
Fear Reduction in the effect of safety in numbers
Reduction in real levels of safety
Source: Carr & Spring 1993
64. A further factor is the media’s depiction of crime. Statistics indicate that violence in our society is far lower than media accounts would suggest. Yet violence is newsworthy and its portrayal is common in both the print and electronic media (Polk & Warren, 1996). The viewer who identifies strongly with the victim can have increased fear about being attacked which reinforces the view that society is dangerous for that person (ABT 1990; Sege & Dietz 1994). In a recent national Morgan poll in Australia, 85 percent of respondents thought that the media concentrated too much on sensational reporting of sex and violence (Brown 1996). In its submission to the inquiry, Queensland Health suggest that the ‘stranger danger’ stereotype, promoted by media reports, serves to reinforce perceptions of women’s vulnerability in public places, and that this further restricts their legitimate activities. (submission 38)
65. A survey commissioned by Queensland Rail examined the effects on rail travellers’ perceptions of a Sunday Mail article in May 1997 about assaults on the Citytrain network. The survey was carried out by Roy Morgan Research. It highlighted, in particular, how the article affected people who travel infrequently on Citytrain. 39 percent of infrequent travellers surveyed recalled the article, and 10 percent stated that they will travel on the network less often or never because of it. Queensland Rail told the committee that approximately 400,000 people use the Citytrain network infrequently, and that this single media article could cost Citytrain 68,000 lost journeys and approximately $110,000 in lost revenue annually. (exhibit 1q)
66. Elsworth (1997) suggests that the public’s misconceived perceptions of safety on public transport may be linked to a ‘dearth of statistical information’ on actual transport crime rates (Elsworth, 1997; 10). In the absence of authoritative data on crime levels, the media looms as the pre-eminent source of expert knowledge.
COST TO THE COMMUNITY OF CRIME ON CITYTRAIN
67. The committee sought to gauge the costs of crime on the Citytrain network based on the statistics for crimes that have been reported to police and estimates of the national costs of crime.
PAGE 17 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
68. The Australian Institute of Criminology published estimates of financial and economic costs of crime in Australia in 1996 (Walker 1997). Financial costs are those costs which are not, in the eyes of economists, losses to the community, but are illegal transfers of purchasing power from victims to offenders. Economic costs of crime arise when crime causes society to divert time, energy and resources from more productive purposes. These include the diversion of scarce medical resources to the treatment of crime victims, the quality of life, losses incurred by victims and the time spent by victims assisting police with enquires, as well as the more obvious costs of public and private resources used against crime (Walker 1997).
69. The institute estimated that crime costs Australians at least $18 billion per annum (Walker 1997). The institute calculated average costs for individual crimes. Assaults were costed at $7,532 where injuries were sustained by the victim, and $264 where there were no injuries. These cost estimates can be applied to the statistics for reported assaults involving railways discussed previously in this report, to approximate the cost of these crimes. For this exercise, the committee has assumed that reported serious assaults, rapes, attempted rapes and attempted murders are injurious assaults and that other assaults involve no injury. Excluding inflation, the estimated costs to the community of reported assaults involving the Citytrain network is $2.7 million during the thirty month period examined with a mean annual cost of $777,000.
70. Nationally, the cost of motor vehicle theft was estimated by the institute at $654 million in 1996 based on 126,919 reported thefts that year. This equates to a cost per stolen motor vehicle of $5,153. This cost estimate can be similarly applied to the statistics for reported motor vehicle thefts from or near Citytrain stations. Excluding the effects of inflation, this gives an estimated cost to the community of $14.1 million during the period examined with a mean annual cost of $4 million.
71. Queensland Rail provided the committee with its costs in relation to removing graffiti and repairing vandalism damage to the Citytrain network. These were $1.77 million in 1994/95, $1.08 million in 1995/96, $1.27 million in 1996/97 and $0.7 million in 1997/98 to the end of December 1997. This suggests an average annualised cost of $1.4 million. Queensland Rail’s costs are likely to be conservative as they do not reflect the policing, judicial and incarceration costs to the community associated with these crimes.
72. As discussed previously, the fear of crime dissuades people from using public transport. This introduces a further secondary cost: the cost of lost patronage. The report from Queensland Transport’s Safety Audit of Queensland Rail states that approximately $2 million in foregone revenue per annum on the Citytrain network is attributable to security concerns (Band 1996).
73. In sum, the annual cost of assaults ($777,000), motor vehicle theft ($4 million), removing graffiti and repairing vandalism damage ($1.4 million) and foregone fares revenue ($2 million) is at least $8.2 million.
74. Crime on the railways and the fear it generates may also have a disproportionate impact on the quality of life for particular groups. It causes the elderly, women and other vulnerable groups to abandon public spaces and live circumscribed lives, curtailing their mobility and access to public resources (Chappell 1995; Shapland & Vagg 1988) Those who don’t have access to private vehicles may be even more disadvantaged than others (Fairfield 1991).
PAGE 18 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
THE IMPETUS FOR CHANGE
75. The fear of crime on public transport is a key issue for Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail. Research for Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail show that the fear of crime is still a factor in people’s decisions not to travel by Citytrain. It is essential that the Citytrain network be better utilised in lieu of trips by private motor vehicles if the livability of South East Queensland is to be maintained. The impacts in the region of pollution and road congestion generated by private motor vehicles is predicted to become more acute as the state experiences sustained population growth into the next century. If the current trends are projected for the next 20 years, between 1992 and 2011 the region will experience:
· a population increase of 60 percent; · a 70 percent increase in the number of person trips taken each day; and · because the urban areas are spreading out further in a dispersed settlement pattern, the total amount of car travel on the region’s roads will increase by nearly 100 percent (QT 1997).
76. The Government’s Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland seeks to increase the current proportion of trips made on public transport in South East Queensland by 50 percent in the year 2011, with the overall share of trips by public transport increasing to 10.5 percent of all trips (QT 1997).
77. The movement of passengers away from rail travel to road-based modes introduces further costs to the community arising out of the higher risk of road crashes, serious injury and death. It also imposes additional costs in terms of road construction, maintenance, and congestion. Increased use of motor vehicles in lieu of public transport introduces environmental and health costs due to gaseous and particulate emissions and noise from vehicles.
CONCLUSIONS
78. There is limited data available on crimes involving railways in Queensland, and no comprehensive data specifically for crimes on the Citytrain network. Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service maintain separate, incompatible databases which record incidents according to different criteria. Neither party has a complete picture of the crimes and other security incidents on the network against passengers.
79. The committee was able to obtain data for crimes involving railways that were reported to police in Queensland between July 1994 and December 1997. Crimes involving the railway comprise a small proportion of the total reported crimes in Queensland. For serious assaults, it is 1.2 percent, 0.3 percent for rapes, 3.7 percent for robberies and 4.8 percent for motor vehicle thefts.
80. Data on crimes against Citytrain passengers was extracted from records of crimes involving railways in Queensland. The committee identified 458 assaults involving the Citytrain network that were likely to have been committed against passengers. It also identified 198 other assaults committed against Queensland Rail employees and police. The data suggests that the incidence of reported crimes involving the Citytrain network has reduced during the 42 month period examined by the committee. While the precise proportion of crimes committed against passengers on the Citytrain network is not known, the incidence of the categories of crimes examined, with the exception of robberies, was low and reducing. For assaults against
PAGE 19 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 3 ~ PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY ON CITYTRAIN PASSENGER SECURITY
passengers on the Citytrain network, the committee determined that a significant proportion of the victims and offenders were aged between 12 and 18 years of age at the time of the offence. It appears that assaults committed by this group are likely to be a major element of the personal safety issues for passengers on the network. Only 1.6 percent of reported assaults were committed against people aged 60 and older.
81. Public perceptions of crime are a key factor in people’s decisions not to use public transport. For Citytrain, these perceptions are likely to be influenced by the cleanliness of stations and trains, the intimidating effects of graffiti on the network, exposure to rowdy, offensive groups, drunkenness, incivility, and the reporting of crime incidents by the media. The particular impact of the media on public perceptions may in turn be influenced by the lack of authoritative data on crimes and risks. Addressing the factors which influence public perceptions is likely to reduce people’s fear and encourage usage of the Citytrain network.
82. The costs of crimes on the Citytrain network are likely to be considerable. Based on estimated costs of crime prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, for crimes reported to police, the annual costs of crimes involving the network is likely to be in the order of $8.2 million comprising: $0.78 million for assaults; $4 million for motor vehicle thefts; $1.4 million for graffiti and vandalism; and $2 million for lost fares revenue due to security concerns.
83. It is imperative that the actual and perceived risks to passengers be addressed to improve the mobility of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups of users, and to encourage patronage of the network as an alternative to travel by private motor vehicle. This is crucial to the future livability of South East Queensland.
PAGE 20 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS
84. This Part discusses the theory of crime and the crime prevention measures that have been implemented on other railways.
WHAT LEADS PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR?
85. In western society, crime is thought to be an almost inevitable by-product of capitalist and consumer lifestyles (Sutton & Hazelhurst 1996). Felson (1994) assigns the causes of crime to two broad categories: Situational or Physical causes; and Social causes.
86. Situational causes of crime include: modern lifestyles (increased mobility and urban anonymity); neighbourhoods or communities in physical decline or under duress; loss or restriction of access to social institutions or environments which had previously enabled a wide range of groups to meet together and interact (churches, community halls, parks, recreational sites); loss of capacity for community surveillance (dormitory style suburbs, working or absent parents); and increased access to facilitators of crime (firearms, alcohol, drugs, pubs and night spots).
87. Social causes of crime could include: economic dislocation (unemployment, poverty); cultural dislocation (dispossession of aboriginal communities); demographic changes (more people in the crime prone 16-24 age group); gender socialisation (the recourse by males to aggression to ‘solve’ problems); social inequality; and the decline of religion, shared social values, or traditional family structures (loss of community sanctions or parental controls, less shame or public outrage against offending) (Felson 1994).
APPROACHES TO CRIME PREVENTION
88. Crime prevention strategies can similarly be grouped into two broad categories: Opportunity Reduction approaches which address the environment or potential crime targets; and Social Crime Prevention approaches. The concepts of opportunity reduction, crime prevention through environmental design and situational prevention are often used interchangeably in the literature (Sutton & Hazelhurst 1995). Figure 4 maps the various approaches to crime prevention that have emerged under these general categories.
89. Argument in crime prevention circles has long raged over the relative merits of trying to prevent crime through alleviating the social problems which are thought to encourage crime, versus treating the symptoms. That is, reducing the opportunities for criminals to commit crimes or, as it is called, situational crime prevention (Geason & Wilson 1989). To date, there has been a strong emphasis by governments on the more tangible situational prevention measures.
PAGE 21 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
Figure 4: Crime prevention approaches
Types of Crime Prevention
Social Opportunity Reduction
Media Publicity Campaigns Institutional Diversion Community Development Developmental Planning and Design Focused (e.g anti-violence) (e.g. school based) (e.g. for "at risk" groups) (reinforce informal bonds (early childhood) (e.g. crime prevention (situational) and controls) through environmental design)
Source: Sutton & Hazelhurst 1995
Crime Prevention Through Opportunity Reduction (Situational) Approaches
90. Opportunity reduction or situational approaches to crime prevention are concerned with eliminating the opportunity for crime through environmental design and management (such as improved lighting and ‘designing out’ hiding places in stations), by increasing human and technological surveillance and through target hardening (vandal-resistant surfaces) (Clarke in Elsworth 1997).
91. Situational crime prevention takes as its starting point the recognition that much crime, especially theft, vandalism and other crimes involving the young, does not stem from any deep- seated predisposition on the part of offenders towards crime, but rather is heavily influenced by the available opportunities to commit such offences (Clarke 1983). It is based on three strands of contemporary criminology - Rational Choice Theory, Opportunity Theory and Environmental Criminology. The rational choice theory of crime suggests that criminal choices result when the rewards of crime are judged to exceed the costs in terms of risk and effort (Cornish & Clarke 1986). Opportunity theory shows how offenders can easily commit crime if there are suitable targets and an absence of guardians (Cohen & Felson 1979). Environmental criminology theory suggests that crime is concentrated in particular ‘hot spots’ located in geographical areas and which occur at particular times (Brantingham & Brantingham 1984). There are two general strands of situational crime prevention: measures dealing with the environment most notably, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; and Focused Situational approaches.
92. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is based on the principle that proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to reductions in both the incidence and fear of crime. It relies on the overlapping strategies of natural surveillance, natural access control and territoriality.
93. Focused Situational crime prevention approaches involve three basic techniques - increasing the efforts, increasing the risks, and reducing the rewards for crime (Clarke 1992). Examples of focused situational crime prevention are police patrols, video surveillance and the use of graffiti-resistant surfaces.
PAGE 22 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
Crime Prevention Through Social Reform (Social Crime Prevention)
94. Another way to reduce crime is through social reform. Social Crime Prevention involves the identification of social, economic, educational and other disadvantages as causes of crime, and the use of social and economic policy countermeasures. These measures are based on the premise that people may turn to crime for income, self-esteem and entertainment because of the absence of legitimate employment, education and recreational opportunities. Social crime prevention emphasises the importance of increasing opportunities to engage in legitimate activities. An example of social crime prevention is providing employment opportunities or recreational facilities in areas where there aren’t any.
95. The term ‘social crime prevention’ can apply to almost any programme which attempts to change social conditions, patterns of behaviour, values or self-discipline in order to reduce the likelihood of offending. Categories include: early childhood or developmental prevention; community development approaches; institutional crime prevention; preventative diversion programmes for so-called ‘at risk’ groups; and media and other publicity aimed at changing social values.
96. Social crime prevention is distinctly different from opportunity reduction or situational approaches in that it may address the origins of criminal behaviour. On the relative merits of community crime prevention, a form of social crime prevention, Currie (1988) writes: -
...real communities thrive or fail to thrive, become healthy or pathological, mainly as a result of the strength or weakness of these basic institutions - work, family and kin, religious and communal associations, a vibrant local economy capable of generating stable livelihoods. When these are weak or shattered, all the neighbourhood watches or ‘hassling’ of street kids on the corner will not put the community back together (Currie, 1988; 283).
97. Most successful crime prevention initiatives invariably combine situational and social techniques (Bottoms 1990).
CRIME PREVENTION ON RAILWAYS
98. The committee has endeavoured to identify crime prevention strategies that have been shown to work on other railways, and could work for the Citytrain network. There are a number of issues which have emerged. There is very little Australian literature on crime prevention on railways and few strategies have been formally evaluated. The following section discusses a selection of crime prevention studies relevant to crimes on railway.
Australian Studies
99. Easteal and Wilson (1991) examine crime prevention on Australian and other public transport systems. They describe fare dodging, vandalism and assault as major problems on railways around the world. They advocate that fare evasion, vandalism and crimes against passengers can be reduced through a variety of situational measures that reduce the opportunities for criminal behaviour and through education.
PAGE 23 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
100. Elsworth (1997) examines the extent of violence on Australian public transport and countermeasures that have proven to be effective. Elsworth concludes that the strategic design of transport environments combined with newer surveillance technology have proved to be the most effective means of reducing public transport crime.
101. Carr & Spring (1993) report on a study of the ‘Train Safe’ program implemented on Victoria’s public transport system in 1989. Crimes against persons were reduced over two years following the implementation of an integrated program of crime prevention by the Public Transport Corporation. The program consisted of: the development of management information systems to improve the quality of the data for analysis; the formation of a consultative community forum; the speedy removal of graffiti from all railway stations; and the installation of CCTV security cameras at stations and on trains and buses. The program resulted in a 42 percent reduction in crimes against the person and significant reductions in graffiti with cost savings and a 45 percent improvement in train availability.
102. Grabosky & James (1995) found that carefully designed lighting enhancements in public settings have been shown to contribute to reductions in crime, incivility and fear. Sustained declines in criminal incidents have been documented where high pressure sodium lamps were introduced in settings which were characterised by poor lighting and high safety risk. The lamps produced an average illumination of 10 lux and a minimum of 5 lux.
103. Urjadko (1991) concludes that reductions in the numbers of carriages on late night trains, to increase the numbers of people in carriages, may result in safer more frequently used public transport. A late night train service called, ‘Safe Train’, was introduced for residents of Melbourne’s outer Lilydale-Ringwood area. The services cater for young people travelling into Melbourne’s city centre on Friday and Saturday nights. As an enticement to get people onto the trains, two policemen were employed to travel the train and entertainment was provided in the carriages. The project was developed because many of the assaults that occurred on the train system occurred late at night when few people were on the trains or stations. By increasing the numbers of people on the trains and on the platforms, it was felt that the likelihood of offences occurring would decline.
104. In 1991, a project was formed in the Melbourne outer-suburbs of Sherbrooke in response to a fear of violence which swept the area (AIC, 1993; 24). The project was funded by the local community and included a safety audit of Upwey Station and the introduction of a Belgrave- City ‘Safe Train’ return service on Saturday nights. The service included entertainment by local bands during the journey and groups of volunteers patrolled the station platforms. The safety audit identified unsafe areas needing improved lighting, fencing and CCTV coverage.
International Studies
105. Gaylord and Galliher (1991) report on a study of the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR), and describe it as the most successful subway system in the World. Its low crime rate is attributed to: the nature of Hong Kong’s society with its overall low crime rate; the efforts of the Mass Transit Railway District Police to ensure a rapid response to calls for assistance; and, most importantly, the well-conceived design of the MTR’s stations and trains which discourage criminal behaviour.
PAGE 24 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
106. Collins (1993) examines the effectiveness of measures introduced on the Strathclyde rail network in Scotland and concludes that the introduction of new rollingstock and the use of on- train staff in a ‘customer care’ role have enhanced passengers’ awareness of security.
107. Kiersch (1980) reports in a study of the Washington D.C. Metrorail system that improved architecture, CCTV and high police visibility can suppress opportunity crimes. Kiersch also concludes that anti-social behaviour has been strongly addressed by strictly enforcing fare evasion and other transit related offences.
108. LaVigne (1997) compares the Washington D.C. Metrorail to three other urban rail transit systems to determine the relationship between station and above ground crime and gauge the impacts of design on crime. LaVigne reports that ground level and station crime are not correlated except for assaults, providing empirical evidence that system design influences crime patterns.
109. Sloan-Howitt & Kelling (1990) examines a program to improve passenger confidence in the New York subway through an intensive program to rapidly remove graffiti from all train cars and stations. They report that graffiti was virtually eliminated.
110. Kenney (1986) in the United States and Webb & Laycock (1992) in the United Kingdom examine whether Guardian Angel vigilantes patrolling stations reduce crimes. Both studies conclude that there is no evidence that the patrols reduce crimes.
111. Eck (1997) reviews studies that evaluated crime prevention initiatives. This work was completed for the National Institute of Justice and the United States Congress. He reviews thirteen studies on initiatives for public transport and six studies of initiatives for car parks. The public transport studies that he reviews include: LaVigne (1997); Carr & Spring (1993); Felson et al. (1997); Kenny (1986); Poyner (1988); and Webb & Laycock (1992). The six studies on preventing car park crime were: Barclay et al. (1996); Hesseling (1995); Laycock & Austin (1992); Poyner (1994); Poyner (1991); and Tilley (1993). Eck highlights that, despite the evaluations, relatively little is known about the effectiveness of the interventions. This is due to the variety of crime types, the number of settings within the transport systems and the variety of victim types. He suggested that a large number of studies are needed to learn what works to prevent transit crimes. Esk writes: -
We cannot, therefore, identify with reasonable certainty, any specific tactic against specific crimes, that can be said to ‘work’ across similar settings in other cities (Eck, 1997; 16).
112. The South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Police Department reputedly achieved dramatic reductions (43 percent) in the incidence of serious crime on the City of Philadelphia rail system through the introduction of zonal policing in 1991 (FBI Law Bulletin,1993). The success of zonal policing is ascribed largely to the useful contacts, familiarity and knowledge gained by officers from constantly working the same areas. The use of on-the-spot penalty notices for minor infringements also meant that officers spent less time off the network. This boosted the visibility of transit police dramatically.
113. Sullivan (1996) states that current practice favours high-visibility foot patrols combining vigorous enforcement and order maintenance with problem-solving activities. When combined with other tactics, such as precision crime analysis, environmental approaches (such as
PAGE 25 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
CPTED) and situational crime prevention, Sullivan concludes that patrol is a powerful transit security tool.
114. At a conference in Paris in 1987, European transport ministers concluded that it is possible to establish a link between the automation of transport systems and vandalism, since automation helps to ‘...create a sense of an alien world without human warmth and likely to provoke aggression.’ The ministers also concluded that the process of rationalising the operation of public transport has entailed the reduction of staffing levels and an increase in problems (ERC 1987).
115. On addressing graffiti and vandalism, Geason et al. (1990) advocate that public spaces be designed which are attractive, foster a sense of ownership in users and are defensible - that is, incorporate design factors which minimise the opportunities for vandalism and graffiti (Geason et al., 1990 ;70). Geason et al. conclude that an analysis of the location, taking into consideration crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) factors such as: -
· surveillability by residents, local workers or passers by; · lighting in the area; · proximity to places where potential vandals congregate, for example schools, discos, pubs, fast-food outlets, pinball parlours, football stadiums etc.; · speed of maintenance; and · aesthetic appeal.
could isolate factors which either discourage or prevent vandalism of, or graffiti on, publicly owned facilities (Geason et al., 1990; 68).
THE EFFICACY OF CCTV SURVEILLANCE
116. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance is discussed in the literature concerning crime prevention on railways and is a key component of Queensland Rail’s security strategy for the Citytrain network. For this reason, the committee specifically examined the use of CCTV to deter and prevent crime in public spaces including public transport settings. This section discusses the evidence gathered by the committee from research studies. Evidence compiled by the committee from inquiry submissions, speeches made at public hearings and exhibits are discussed later in Part 5 of the report.
117. Queensland Rail is investing heavily in CCTV surveillance equipment for the Citytrain network and has created the largest CCTV surveillance system in Queensland. This has been largely on the basis that CCTV has been implemented by all other Australian suburban railways. The committee has been told that there are 1,385 cameras installed on the Brisbane Citytrain network, 1,569 on the Sydney CityRail network, approximately 2,500 on the Met in Melbourne, 218 on the TransAdelaide system and 63 cameras at WestRail stations.
118. CCTV has become popular in Australia and other countries for monitoring public spaces. The Privacy Committee of NSW report that the market for closed circuit television commenced in Australia in the 1960s. Its usage has expanded rapidly since then with falling equipment costs and improved sophistication. The technology has developed to the point that the system installed at the Sydney Football Stadium is able to quickly produce a photograph of an
PAGE 26 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
individual spectator in a crowd. The industry estimated that sales in Australia in 1994/95 were worth over $50 million (PCNSW 1995).
Research Findings
119. No substantive research in Australia has been undertaken to indicate whether CCTV surveillance provides increased personal and property protection.
120. In the Act, an inquiry into the efficacy of surveillance cameras in public places concluded that ‘the perception of public danger may be overstated and... the effectiveness of CCTV as the solution...(is) yet to be demonstrated’ (Legislative Assembly of ACT in NSWLRC, 1997: 34).
121. In its issues paper on surveillance, the NSW Law Reform Commission made the following statement about CCTV: -
Although the Commission is not itself engaged in evaluating the efficacy of CCTV, it notes that there is little evidence from which to conclude that the enormous expense of establishing such a system will, of itself, provide local authorities with the panacea to crime and anti-social behaviour. Such authorities would need to question whether other means of controlling crime, such as increasing the number of beat police, might not achieve similar results at lower cost (NSWLRC, 1997; 34).
122. Ward (1996) discusses the efficacy of surveillance cameras in Britain with over 200,000 CCTVs installed, and the rise of what he describes as ‘virtual policing’. Ward examines both the research and anecdotal evidence of CCTV’s crime deterrence and prevention value. He describes video cameras as ‘seductive symbols’: -
... they (video cameras) make the public feel safer, politicians (feel) that something tangible has been done, and authoritarians that anti-social elements cannot escape their all-seeing eye (Ward 1996).
123. Ward notes that the main claim for CCTVs is that they deter criminals. He discusses three separate research studies on the effectiveness of camera surveillance programs in five different areas in the United Kingdom, and a study by the UK Home Office. All studies produced equivocal results. While reductions in crime levels were noted, bigger reductions were noted in response to other crime prevention initiatives such as equipping security staff with radio pagers (Ward, 1995; 12). The studies noted that the effectiveness of the cameras varied for different types of crime. While the cameras seem to prevent burglaries and vehicle thefts, they were found to have less effect on vandalism, assault and public disorder offences.
124. Webb & Laycock (1992) examine the impact of CCTV surveillance on crimes on the London Underground stations where they had been installed. They compared crime statistics relative to control stations and concluded that robberies had reduced by between 11 and 28 percent.
125. Eck (1997) reports on studies of the use of CCTV to prevent crime in car parks. He notes that evaluations in parking lots and garages outside the United States consistently support the hypotheses that guards and CCTV reduce vehicle-related property crime. However, he concludes that effectiveness of CCTV in parking lots is ‘unknown’ because of difficulties with the methodologies used for the evaluations.
PAGE 27 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
126. In terms of influencing the public’s perceptions of crime, Bennett & Gelsthorpe (1996) report that 73 percent of respondents to a British survey felt CCTV was effective in detecting, deterring and preventing crime.
Problems with CCTV
127. A number of operational and privacy issues are associated with the use of CCTV surveillance in public places.
Operational Issues
128. Rather than preventing crime from occurring, a side effect of crime prevention is the displacement of crime to another place. During its Inquiry into Video Surveillance in the Workplace, the Privacy Commission of NSW heard evidence of displacement after CCTV systems were installed. It heard that because financial institutions and retailers have developed more sophisticated security systems, armed robberies have shifted to ‘softer’ targets such as petrol stations, liquor shops and pharmacies (Privacy Committee of NSW, Invisible Eyes: report on Video Surveillance in the Workplace, No. 67 Sydney, September 1995, p19).
129. The effectiveness of CCTV may also reduce with time. The UK Home Office (1995) notes in its Newcastle study in the UK that criminals are starting to test the cameras to see what they can get away with and how long it takes the police to arrive at the scene of a crime.
130. Ward (1995) discusses a further problem associated with the introduction of cameras, the operators inability to interpret what is going on on the screen, their uncertainty as to when to alert police and police uncertainty as to when to react. Ward also notes that CCTVs have had some high profile success including the arrest of a villain who abducted and murdered a child in 1993 after security video footage was shown on TV. However he also notes that this spectacular success is not the norm and that the most frequent success in using the cameras has been shown in minor offences (Ward 1995).
131. CCTV is also expensive. For its Trainsafe Package of security initiatives, Queensland Rail initially budgeted $5,000 per camera for purchase and installation. In total, the projected capital expenditure on cameras amounts to $10.5 million out of a total package budget of $17 million. (exhibit 1m) The ACT Attorney General’s Department in its report on a proposed CCTV surveillance scheme, expressed concern about establishment and on-going costs, particularly when there has been no formal evaluation of CCTV’s effectiveness. It also notes that other initiatives could be undertaken such as comprehensive safety audits to address the fear of crime and improve environmental design, and that CCTV surveillance does not address the underlying causes of crime or target behaviour (ACTAG, 1994; 31).
132. The level of monitoring of CCTV is a further issue and varies from system to system. Some are actively monitored while others use CCTV merely to record images. This has a bearing on the detection of, and response to, security incidents. With a communication or surveillance system, success depends on the response time to incidents and the frequency and rapidity with which incidents are detected (Richards & Hoel 1980).
Privacy Issues
PAGE 28 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
133. Key arguments against surveillance have centred on the privacy infringements, although there are no common law rights to privacy in Australia.
134. It is not clear how Australians feel about the intrusion of CCTV surveillance. In a 1994 survey of attitudes to privacy in Australia, 44 percent of those surveyed were ‘very concerned’ about people video taping their movements in public places, whereas 25 percent of people surveyed were ‘not at all concerned’. More recently, a Bulletin-Morgan poll found that the majority of Australians (54 percent) approve the use of surveillance cameras in both public places and workplaces as a means for preventing crime despite the contention that it is an invasion of privacy (Morgan 1997).
135. The ACT Attorney-General’s Department suggest that, from a privacy perspective, there would need to be strong social justification for surveillance of the public by the Government (ACTAG, 1994; 31). Privacy safeguards are advocated to protect privacy with inclusions such as: visible signs to indicate to the public that the area is surveyed; taping and monitoring would need to be in a secure place with authorised personnel in attendance only; the tapes would be Government property and would only be held for a specified time, only released under proper authority, not to be duplicated, or identify offenders publicly (ACTAG, 1994; 31).
136. The Australian Retailers Association (ARA) has drafted a video surveillance code of conduct applicable to retail settings. The ARA recognises that video surveillance is potentially intrusive and the code has been developed to protect the rights of retailers, their employees, customers, suppliers and all others visiting retail premises (ARA 1998). The draft code addresses: the use of both overt and covert video surveillance; the notification of the use of video surveillance; and principles for conducting video surveillance. It requires that retailers ensure that: · staff using the equipment are properly instructed in its use and adequately supervised at all times; · the privacy of persons recorded on video who are not involved in any unlawful activity is protected; · video recordings not required for evidentiary purposes are erased as soon as practicable; · the information recorded is treated as ‘confidential’ and not shown to any person other than those directly connected with the original recording of the images or involved in the investigation of unlawful activity where the recording is relevant; and · the use of video surveillance is not related to the productivity of staff or similar industrial matters and does not unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of employees.
137. The committee notes the explicit requirement in the draft code that retailers provide signs in simple language to notify staff, customers and all other people entering their premises of their intention to conduct video surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS
138. Crime is an almost inevitable by-product of capitalist and consumer lifestyles. Crime can be prevented by addressing the social causes of crime, or reducing the opportunities for it to occur. Crime involving the railway must therefore be seen as part of a wider crime problem. Crime prevention on railways has tended to focus on reducing the opportunities for crime through environmental improvements and focused situational measures such as policing, surveillance and target hardening. There are opportunities and potential benefits for Queensland Rail to work with other agencies on social crime prevention initiatives.
PAGE 29 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 4 ~ PREVENTING CRIME ON RAILWAYS PASSENGER SECURITY
139. There has been relatively little research into crime prevention on railways. Very few approaches have been formally evaluated and very little is known about how an initiative’s success on one system can be replicated on another. Measures should therefore be trialed and evaluated on a small scale before widespread implementation. The available research suggests that a combination of crime prevention approaches is needed based on a proper analysis of the crimes and issues that are occurring. It is essential that Queensland Rail addresses these issues, and establishes a research and evaluation culture in its approach to security management.
140. Railways in Australia have invested heavily in CCTV surveillance systems for station platforms, car parks and trains in a bid to improve security for passengers, staff and infrastructure. There is little evidence however that CCTV is effective at preventing or deterring crimes. The deployment of CCTV in public spaces also introduces operational and privacy issues that need to be addressed.
PAGE 30 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK
141. This part discusses the security management and policing of the Citytrain network by Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service.
QUEENSLAND RAIL AS SECURITY MANAGER
142. All aspects of the security system, with the exception of the Police Railway Squad, are administered by Queensland Rail. (submission 31) Queensland Rail is principally responsible through its duty of care to passengers and staff. This includes the security of passengers and staff whilst they are on the railway and the security of premises and rollingstock in train stabling areas, maintenance depots and facilities. Queensland Rail determines the prioritisation and allocation of expenditure for security initiatives on the railways. This includes defining security objectives, priorities and strategic directions for expenditure.
143. Within Queensland Rail, security management functions on the Citytrain network are carried out by the Citytrain Protective Services Section within the Citytrain Group General Manager’s Office. This includes: liaising with police, other agencies and community groups; investigating complaints made by members of the public; performing policing functions on the network to support police; and the day to day running of CCTV surveillance equipment and operations. Protective Services’ policing function on Citytrain is supplemented by private security guards funded by Queensland Rail. These private security guards are deployed to provide a visible human presence at stations during high risk times and on Guardian Train services in the evenings.
Audit of Queensland Rail’s Security Policy by Queensland Transport
144. A specific audit of Queensland Rail’s public/passenger security was carried out between April and May 1996. This audit was conducted by the then manager of Queensland Transport’s Rail Safety Accreditation Unit, Mr Kevin Band. The report states that the audit ‘analysed current and proposed initiatives and compared those proposals against worldwide best practice’ (Band 1996). This was the first such audit of Queensland Rail by Queensland Transport.
145. In the report from this audit, Band (1996) discusses Queensland Rail’s implementation of a security policy for Citytrain with the following features:
· security enforcement e.g. police, security guards; · performance monitoring; · infrastructure e.g. lighting; · management of perceptions; · legislation; · community programs;
PAGE 31 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
· technology e.g. surveillance cameras; and · operational procedures.
146. The program had an initial $22.1m budget for 1994-1997. This was predominantly for expenditure on capital equipment which included:
· cameras at stations; · improved lighting at stations; · alarm systems to station buildings where surveillance equipment has been installed; · emergency links to Mayne Control Centre from stations with help phones and surveillance equipment; and · enhanced car park security at priority locations.
147. The object of the program was to ‘...meet Government and Queensland Rail objectives of significantly decreasing the incidences of assault, theft, vandalism and graffiti’ (Band 1996). As noted by Band, Queensland Rail did not identify the size of the reductions to be achieved.
148. Associated with the $22.1m investment were: the introduction of ticket vending machines; ticket inspectors; tougher fare evasion legislation; creation of Citytrain Protective Services Section; a review of security exposure in conjunction with the police; clarification of relationships between the police and Citytrain; and resourcing of the uniformed Police Rail Squad. In terms of expenditure, it appears that the main thrust of the security policy was to apply technological solutions to security problems.
149. Band (1996) writes that risk assessment analysis had not been incorporated into the security policy to identify security risks. As a result he states: -
…there is a danger that attention is focused towards lower level priorities…Currently the security policy lacks quantitative estimates of benefits and expected improvement levels are not documented (Band 1996).
150. After 1996, Queensland Rail examined a broader spectrum of areas in their approach to crime prevention on the railways, although Queensland Rail does not report on whether the existing security measures were effective, or whether useful data was collected to determine what future initiatives should be implemented.
151. Queensland Rail’s current strategic response to security concerns on the Citytrain network is the Trainsafe package launched by the Minister for Transport and Main Roads in January 1997. This package contains most of the previous package of security policy initiatives implemented over a longer time frame.
Trainsafe Package
152. Queensland Rail describes Trainsafe as ‘a $17 million package of initiatives over five years designed to improve the safety and security of the Citytrain network for both passengers and staff up to levels commensurate with community expectations.’ (exhibit 1n) The package represents the largest capital investment in security on the railways in Queensland. In its
PAGE 32 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Trainsafe Project Report, Queensland Rail lists the measures in the package to enhance the personal safety of passengers as:
· Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance at stations and on trains; · better lighting and fencing at stations; · more secure car parks; · extended station staffing hours at core stations to enhance security at stations from the first to last train, 6 days per week; · special nominated ‘Guardian Trains’ at night, with private security guards on board for the complete duration of the service; · extended trials of personal distress buttons and on-train monitoring of passenger behaviour via CCTV connections to the guard’s cabin; · a better defined working relationship between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service; and · legislative changes to provide appropriate authority for Queensland Rail’s security officers to adequately deal with security offenders. (exhibit 1n)
153. Through the implementation of the Trainsafe package, Queensland Rail aims to have achieved the following outcomes by the year 2001:
· reduced assaults (from 4.6 to 2.3 per million passenger journeys); · reduced stolen vehicles (from 155 to 75 per million opportunities); · reduced graffiti costs (from $21,000 to $10,000 per million passengers); and · reduced employee lost time due to security related incidents (from 390 days to 200 days per annum).
154. The following sections discuss the elements of the package in greater detail.
CCTV Surveillance at Stations and on Trains
155. At the end of March 1998, Queensland Rail told the committee it had installed a total of 1,385 CCTV surveillance cameras on the Citytrain network. This comprised 544 overt CCTV surveillance cameras at 85 stations, 377 cameras at 20 station car parks and 464 covert cameras on 44 Citytrain trains. (exhibit 15) The cameras at stations and in car parks provide 24 hour coverage, 7 days a week.
156. All cameras on the network have fixed focal length lenses and orientation. Queensland Rail chose fixed cameras rather than cameras with zoom lenses that could be tilted and panned by remote control to reduce costs and maintenance requirements. However, a larger number of these fixed cameras is required to cover the same area. From the cameras, a time lapse series of still, colour images is multiplexed and recorded by video recorders located in the station offices. Current cameras record video only. Where the cameras are installed at staffed stations, staff at the station can view the real time images on TV monitors located adjacent to their service counters. In addition, all station cameras can be ‘dialled up’ and remotely monitored by train control staff at Queensland Rail’s Mayne Train Control Centre.
PAGE 33 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
157. Covert cameras installed on trains monitor the passenger areas and relay images to television monitors and recording equipment located in the guards’ cabins. Following successful trials of the ‘in-cab’ monitors, Queensland Rail is proceeding to retrofit the cameras and in-cab monitoring system to all Citytrain trains over the next two years.
158. Tape recordings of images from cameras throughout the network are changed daily during weekdays and once over weekends and held by Citytrain Protective Services for fourteen days. After that the tapes are recycled. On weekends, the amount of lapsed time between recorded, still images is extended to avoid the need for a daily tape change.
159. Queensland Rail advised the committee that it is in the process of upgrading its surveillance system so cameras at stations and car parks can be more rigorously monitored. From May 1998, staff at Mayne Control Centre will be assigned exclusively to this task. Interim arrangements using existing monitoring systems commenced in April 1998. Two full-time staff members will monitor the cameras per shift for two shifts daily: one to monitor the cameras on the northside; and one for the southside. According to Queensland Rail, these staff will talk to train crews about security incidents and act as a direct liaison between the operators of the railway, the Police Rail Squad, Citytrain Protective Services and regional police. (exhibit 14) Prior to this, it appears that cameras have been deployed largely by Queensland Rail to gather video-taped evidence rather than to detect and respond to crime incidents.
Lighting and Fencing Upgrades at Stations
160. Lighting has been improved at all Citytrain stations to comply with recognised Australian Standards. Standard pool safety fencing has been installed around platforms.
Car Park Improvements
161. Security has been improved at some station car parks on the network through a combination of:
· secure parking areas which are locked by staff between 9.00 am and 2.00 pm on weekdays; · enhanced lighting, perimeter fencing and CCTV surveillance; and · increased patrols by police and private security contractors.
162. Up to 42 CCTV cameras are installed in individual car parks. The car parks with the most extensive CCTV coverage are the newly constructed Helensvale (39 cameras) and Nerang (42 cameras) stations on the Gold Coast Line.
163. Queensland Rail has trialed using CCTV cameras located at car park exit points to capture images of car number plates and drivers as they leave the car parks to record theft. It told the committee, however, that this trial was unsuccessful due to glare and image ‘washout’ problems and the inability to source cameras that overcame the problem. (exhibit 14)
PAGE 34 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Extended Station Staffing Hours
164. Under the proposal, thirty core stations would be staffed from the first to last trains, Monday to Saturday. These stations include:
· Altandi · Eagle Junction · Petrie · Beenleigh · Ferny Grove · Redbank · Birkdale · Helensvale · South Brisbane · Bowen Hills · Indooroopilly · Toombul · Caboolture · Ipswich · Toowong · Central · Manly · Vulture Street · Cleveland · Mitchelton · Woodridge · Coorparoo · Morningside · Wynnum Central · Corinda · Northgate · Darra · Park Road
Guardian Trains
165. Pairs of private security guards contracted to Queensland Rail provide additional security on select outbound night services. These services, called Guardian Trains, depart from Central Station at approximately 7.30, 9.30 and 11.30 pm nightly on each line. The special services have been promoted in newspapers and on station billboards and are highlighted on train timetables. According to Queensland Rail, the patronage of Guardian Trains has increased by between 6 and 9 percent over previous services.
Duress Button Trials
166. Queensland Rail invited suppliers to trial personal security alarm systems for passengers and staff at nine stations over a three month period finishing in 1997. This followed a smaller series of trials of one system at Park Road Station during 1996. These systems have been previously introduced at hospitals, university campuses and major shopping complexes to provide security for staff, particularly at night. These two systems trialed on the Citytrain network consist of key ring control buttons which the user carries, a receiving unit at stations and a phone-link from the receiving unit to a remote monitoring centre. During the trials, station staff and a limited number of passengers could use the buttons to activate an alarm at the stations where the systems were installed if they, or other persons, were attacked or menaced. Receiving units at stations emit warning sirens, flashing lights and a voice message designed to deter attackers. The call registers simultaneously at a remote monitoring centre where the nearest police and security staff can be alerted to the incident. The system identifies the person who activates the alarm, and this is recorded with details of the location and time of the call.
167. Two of the systems trialed are modular and could be expanded to provide complete coverage of all stations and rollingstock on the network, as well as other areas off the network such as shopping centres. These systems can be configured to provide other functions such as: a centralised personal address system at each station where fitted; activating cameras at stations in response to a duress call; monitoring fire and motion detector alarms where fitted to station buildings; and monitoring other security systems. Both systems could be used with vehicle anti-theft devices. These devices could be offered to patrons using station car parks.
PAGE 35 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
168. The makers of one system which was trialed most extensively submitted a marketing plan to Queensland Rail to use the system to generate revenue. This involved using their system’s personal address feature to broadcast paid advertising segments to patrons at railway stations across the network. This revenue could be used to offset operating costs.
169. Queensland Rail has evaluated the duress button trials. It concluded that, while the duress buttons on their own do not stop an incident from occurring, they can be an important element in an overall security package. (exhibit 1v)
A Better Defined Working Relationship Between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service
170. Queensland Rail advised the committee that improved coordination between its Protective Services Branch and the Queensland Police Service has been achieved with weekly joint operations and a continual exchange of confidential information.
Legislative Changes
171. Queensland Rail submitted to the committee that the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 should be amended to provide its Citytrain Protective Security staff and private security guards with the following powers, as authorised officers, while on the Citytrain network:
· powers to detain offenders pending arrest by police; · powers to move people on in certain circumstances and to prohibit their re-entry to the railway for a specified period; · powers to refuse entry or ridership to known security offenders or to those who are drunk or disorderly.
Issues concerning the powers of authorised officers are discussed in Part 6 of this report.
Expenditure Breakdown for Trainsafe
172. Table 9 details the original capital expenditure budget for the Trainsafe package. Most notably, it provides for approximately $10.5 million to be spent on CCTV cameras and equipment at stations and on trains. This represents 61.7 percent of the total capital expenditure for the package ($17 million).
Other Security Initiatives
Train Watch
173. In August 1995, Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service launched a program called ‘Train Watch’ to encourage train travellers and people on or near train stations to report offences and other personal safety matters to police.
PAGE 36 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Table 9: Trainsafe package budget allocation
ITEM BUDGET ALLOCATION PROPORTION OF IN $ TOTAL BUDGET CCTV - Stations 8,431,603.00 49.6 % CCTV - Trains 2,050,000.00 12.1 % Sub-Total 10,431,603.00 61.7 % Better Lighting and Fencing at Stations 394,150.00 2.3 % Secure Car Parks 3,596,238.00 21.1 % Corridor Signage to Discourage Trespassers 250,000.00 1.5 % Personal Duress Button Trials 105,140.00 0.6 % Emergency Phones 360,869.00 2.1 % Project Management and 1,812,000.00 10.7 % Contingencies Grand Total $17,000,000.00 100.0 %
Source: Taken from Queensland Rail Scope of Works Report for Trainsafe, 7.11.96 Queensland Rail (exhibit 1m)
Queensland Rail Citytrain School Education Program
174. Liaison officers within Queensland Rail present lectures to school students, on request from schools, about safety issues concerning the railway. The program is principally aimed at increasing the students’ awareness of hazards they may encounter as train travellers such as collision risks at railway level crossings, electrocution hazards posed by overhead power cables for trains and the need to stand clear of moving trains at stations. However, these officers also provide a link between the railway administration and schools in relation to student travel concessions, school excursions on the railway and security matters on the railway involving school students.
Station Core Zone Trial - Ferny Grove Line
175. Queensland Rail is trialing a core zone concept at stations on the Ferny Grove Line, similar to Sydney’s ‘Night Wait Program’. The trial provides for the centralisation of ticket vending machines, public phone, help point, high security lighting and a ‘core security zone’ painted on the platform. This will enable customers to wait in close proximity to the stopping location of night time trains, with all security features at stations in the one location. The core zones are immediately beside the help phones and covered by CCTV cameras. The trial commenced in April 1998. (exhibit 14)
Roving Communications for Train Guards
176. Queensland Rail is acquiring lapel microphones and hand held radios for all Citytrain train guards. The microphones and radios will enable the guards to maintain contact with the driver of their train and Mayne Control Centre whenever they leave their cabins. This will allow guards to have a higher profile with customers and undertake an increased customer service role while retaining radio contact for emergency assistance. (exhibit14)
PAGE 37 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Decentralising Citytrain Protective Services Staff
177. In early April 1998, Citytrain Protective Services staff were decentralised from the Railway Centre at Central Station to locations at Bowen Hills, Nundah and Sherwood. (exhibit 14)
Improved On-time Running of Trains
178. While not described as a security initiative by Queensland Rail, the committee notes that Queensland Rail has substantially improved the reliability of its services to the point where Citytrain is arguably the most reliable commuter railway in Australia. The reliability of train services, particularly at night, was discussed in inquiry submissions from members of the public as an important issue in minimising the time spent waiting on station platforms at high risk times. The Chief Executive of Queensland Rail, Mr Vince O’Rourke, told the committee:-
Citytrain trains are running at the best on-time performance that we have seen in this state. We are now quite confidently the best on-time performance railway in the country, with average performance right across the 24 hours averaging better than 95 percent (Mr O’Rourke, transcript page 61).
The committee welcomes this excellent achievement by Citytrain.
THE ROLE OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
179. The Queensland Police Service is responsible for policing the network as distinct from the security management role of Queensland Rail. Policing functions on the Citytrain network are performed by police from different areas of the force:
· General duties police from the regions serviced by the Citytrain network (Metropolitan South, Metropolitan North, South Eastern and North Coast) respond to the vast majority of calls for police assistance that emanate from the network while they are on patrol; · the Police Rail Squad provides a pro-active policing presence, mounts crime operations on the network and responds to some calls for assistance if in the vicinity; and · Criminal Investigations Branch investigates indictable offences of a serious nature.
180. A significant proportion of calls for assistance involving regional police emanate from railway stations. The Criminal Justice Commission and the Queensland Police Service (CJC 1997) reported on first response policing in the Beenleigh Police District. Three railway stations (Bethania, Beenleigh and Holmview) were among the nine locations in the Beenleigh district that recorded the highest demands for police assistance. These nine locations accounted for approximately 8 percent of the total resources devoted to first response policing in the Beenleigh district. Police were called 130 times to the three stations over the twelve month study period. 61 of these calls were to one railway station. The study also recorded police response times. Railway stations fared marginally better for response times overall compared to other calls for Beenleigh. Approximately 40% of calls to the stations were responded to within ten minutes.
PAGE 38 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
The Police Rail Squad
181. The Police Rail Squad has a strength of twenty-three uniformed officers. The Squad is part of Special Services Branch within Operations Support Command. It is managed by an inspector and located at the Roma Street Transit Centre.
182. The primary role of the Police Rail Squad is:-
... to provide a high profile uniform presence on the rail network, to identify, deter and prosecute offenders for criminal and anti-social behaviour. (exhibit 4b)
183. The policing activities of the Rail Squad include:-
...the investigation of offences committed on Queensland Rail premises, staff and passengers, revenue protection and surveillance of identified high-risk areas. (exhibit 4b)
184. The police submission states that the squad has been most effective in dealing with gangs on the network. (submission 31)
Memorandum of Understanding Between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service
185. A Memorandum of Understanding Between Queensland Rail and Queensland Police Service, signed in January 1996, outlines the general understanding between the parties for policing the Citytrain network. This follows a previous agreement in 1989. This agreement addresses: the operations of the Police Rail Squad; arrangements for shared funding; joint operations with Queensland Rail staff; and management arrangements. The Police Rail Squad provides the pro-active policing component on the network. The current agreement reflects a change and restructure of the Rail Squad from plain clothes to uniformed officers. On this point, the agreement states that:-
...a high profile uniform presence on the network would be more effective in deterring anti-social and criminal behaviour by addressing the perception of safety on the rail system through a visible presence. (exhibit 4b)
186. A funding arrangement in the memorandum provides that the Queensland Police Service meets the base salary costs of officers in the Rail Squad while Queensland Rail provide their equipment, vehicles and office premises, and funds their overtime, penalty pay rates and travelling allowances.
PAGE 39 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
ISSUES FOR QUEENSLAND RAIL AND THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
187. The committee has concerns about the following security management and policing issues.
Development of Crime Prevention Policies by Queensland Rail
188. One of the issues identified by Band (1996) concerning security in his report on the safety audit of Queensland Rail by Queensland Transport was that ‘...risk assessment processes have not been used to identify security risks. As a result, he states ‘...there is a danger that attention is focused towards lower level priorities’ (Band 1996). Mukherjee (1996) and others discuss the premise that ‘good crime analysis’ should precede crime prevention policies and planning. Mukherjee (1996) states:-
...it is important that those in power correctly identify the problems before initiating new policies to deal with crime. This includes identifying who are the players; what are their relationships; where do these assaults take place; what are the circumstances that lead to these crimes and were weapons used.
189. The committee could not identify whether Queensland Rail had undertaken a ‘good crime analysis’ before developing and implementing its security initiatives. It is also not clear that Queensland Rail researched and evaluated the security options available to it. If this crime analysis, research and evaluation of options did occur, it was not documented by Queensland Rail and was not provided to the committee. The Trainsafe package launched in 1997 and the previous Security program launched in 1994 presented packages of options without explaining how they were arrived at or providing substantive evidence to support their implementation. Because of these apparent flaws in Queensland Rail’s policy processes, the committee fears that Queensland Rail may not have selected the most effective crime prevention strategies for the Citytrain network.
190. Major strategic security decisions are made by Queensland Rail without the input of police or expert independent advice from other sources. The Trainsafe package, and the previous security policy initiatives on which the package was largely based, committed the previous and current governments to investing heavily in technology to enhance security. The initiatives impact on police work on the railway, yet the Queensland Police Service had no formal input into their development.
191. Finally, Queensland Rail has not provided for its security initiatives to be objectively evaluated. As a consequence of this, it will be extremely difficult to disentangle the impacts of the individual strategies that make up the Trainsafe package. Performance measurement and evaluation are important to ascertain whether programs are having the desired effect, whether reforms are required and, if so, what forms they should take. Performance measurement and evaluation are important because they will ultimately have a major impact on the distribution of resources (Wanna et al., 1992; 170). There are also compelling arguments that evaluations should be external (Browne and Wildavsky 1987; Kelly 1987 cited in Wanna et al., 1992; Campbell, 1979; 71-72; Gray and Jenkins, 1982; 438-40; Nioche & Poinsard, 1985; 68; Wanna et al., 1992; 171).
PAGE 40 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
192. As a minimum, the committee recommends that Queensland Rail seeks expert independent advice on security issues, involves the Police Rail Squad in the development of its security policies and plans for all major initiatives to be objectively evaluated.
RECOMMENDATION 2
That Queensland Rail: seeks expert independent advice on security issues; involves the Police Rail Squad in the development of its security policies; and plans for all major initiatives to be externally evaluated. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
Allocating Priorities for Security Expenditure
193. A further related issue concerns how Queensland Rail assigns priority to stations for security upgrades. In evidence to the committee, officers from the Police Rail Squad with intimate knowledge of the crime issues on the network said:-
…their (Queensland Rail’s) approach to addressing security at stations is not really linked with where the crime is occurring. They have put a lot of security in stations where nothing ever happens, whereas stations that are just really big problems have no security at all…There are some stations that are particular problems, and have always been problems, and there is still no security there…no cameras, no security car parks, no additional staff. (transcript, page 15)
194. The Ipswich Women’s Health Clinic Inc and Sexual Assault Service is concerned that there is an uneven level of safety provision between urban stations on the Ipswich line and the more rural stations towards Rosewood. Their submission states that urban stations with high incidence of crime are favoured, ‘drawing resources away from rural areas where isolation and the threat of violence is great and safety provision already limited.’ (submission 42)
195. The committee asked Mr O’Rourke, Chief Executive Officer of Queensland Rail, on what basis stations were chosen for security upgrades such as cameras or secured car parks. Mr O’Rourke replied:-
The overall strategy is that we would be covering all of the stations in the network…for the early parts of the program we targeted the busier stations—the stations with heavier throughput—where we get the maximum effect. Also, we gave priority to some stations at which we believed there were significant problems. (transcript, page 78)
196. In its submission to the inquiry, the Ipswich Women’s Health Centre Inc. & sexual Assault Service provided the committee with a report on its safety audit of railway stations between Rosewood and Goodna. The audit was undertaken by women living and working in Ipswich and provides a resource for prioritizing improvements to enhance the security of passengers. The committee notes the comprehensive nature of the audit and the practical observations made by the women involved. This report provides an excellent supplement to crime statistics provided by police in determining risks on the stations surveyed. Submissions were received by the committee from a range of community groups, local authorities and other stakeholders. The committee suggests that this is indicative of a strong level of interest, a desire to be consulted and willingness to contribute.
PAGE 41 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
197. The committee recommends that stations should receive security upgrades based on indicators of risk, including crimes reported to police, rather than based on passenger throughput. Allocating priority on the basis of passenger throughput may not provide the most efficient use of resources. It also recommends that police, particularly the Police Rail Squad, should be consulted in these matters. The Police Rail Squad, through its policing role, is ideally equipped to advise Queensland Rail on crime risks on the Citytrain network.
198. All stations should provide patrons with safe access to platforms, waiting areas that are clean and well lit, information on train services and major delays, the means to summons help in an emergency and a public telephone to arrange other connecting transport. The committee believes that these should be standard features at all stations on the network.
199. The committee also recommends that Queensland Rail seeks input from community groups and members of the public in its determination of priorities for security upgrades on the network through a public consultation process.
RECOMMENDATION 3
That Queensland Rail prioritises station upgrades to enhance security based on indicators of risk at stations, rather than passenger throughput at stations.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 4
That Queensland Rail seeks input from community groups and members of the public in its determination of priorities for security upgrades on the network through a public consultation process. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 5
That Queensland Rail provides, as a minimum, the following facilities at its stations to assist passengers: safe access to platforms, waiting areas that are clean and well lit, information on train services and major delays; the means to summons help in an emergency; and a public telephone to arrange other connecting transport.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 6
That Queensland Rail consults the Police Rail Squad to identify and prioritise stations warranting security upgrades. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads · Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing
PAGE 42 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Crime Prevention Approaches
200. The crime prevention approaches adopted by Queensland Rail lean heavily towards focused situational approaches with relatively little emphasis on environmental or social crime prevention approaches. Invariably, these initiatives may merely displace crime from the immediate environs of the railway to other sites. Displaced crime activity may still impact on the movement of passengers or intending passengers to and from the railway. The committee acknowledges that Queensland Rail has a finite responsibility for the railway and that many social factors that contribute to crime are beyond its control. As Queensland Rail’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Vince O’Rourke, told the committee in his evidence, ‘..(crime) is not just a transport and railway issue; it is a broader community issue...What we have seen emerge in the late eighties and the nineties is the different attitudes of people.’ (Mr O’Rourke, transcript page 62)
201. Because of its substantial vested interest, it is incumbent on Queensland Rail to work with other government agencies, local authorities and community groups to coordinate improvements in the station environs (including the surrounding urban environment) and to encourage social crime prevention initiatives. Social crime prevention approaches may be particularly worthwhile in relation to young people, the difficulties caused by groups who loiter at railway stations and crimes such as graffiti.
202. Like adults, young people enjoy ‘hanging out’ in public spaces with friends. Over the past decade, shopping centres and malls have become popular places for young people to ‘hang out’, because they provide safe spaces unsupervised by adults (LGAQ 43). From the evidence taken by the committee, railway stations on the Citytrain network are popular hang outs for young people. However, groups of young people socialising in public places are often perceived with suspicion. While security measures are important, they should exist alongside positive strategies for including and involving young people. Because fewer options are available to young people (particularly young people without much money) they are often more visible users of public spaces, increasing the likelihood of them generating apprehension and becoming involved in conflict (Feral Arts 1995).
203. Initiatives that acknowledge the rights and interests of young people and seek to accommodate their legitimate needs for safe public spaces in the community might provide a more effective long-term solution to difficulties caused by their use of railway stations as ‘hang outs’ and the policy and enforcement responses that are usually invoked. As suggested to the committee by Senior Sergeant Limbach of the Police Rail Squad:-
...If we can at least get some of the users who are congregating at stations involved in some other activity, it will be worth while. (Snr Sgt Limbach, transcript page 17)
204. As discussed in Part 4, environmental design has been shown to impact on crime, and offers proven methods to eliminate known triggers to criminal behaviour. Audits of stations using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles have been used to identify design problems on the CityRail urban train system in Sydney as part of a comprehensive approach to security management. (submission 11) The committee understands that Citytrain Protective Security staff undertake audits of stations prior to installing security cameras. It is not clear though, that these are CPTED audits, or that these staff have the appropriate training and expertise to undertake CPTED audits.
PAGE 43 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
205. The need to maximise natural surveillance of sites, a cornerstone of CPTED, has important implications for passengers, staff and the police. Stations which do not provide natural surveillance (e.g. people in the surrounding area cannot observe people on the station) impede police surveillance from adjacent streets or car parks. Drive-by patrols are an important component of police surveillance of stations on the network. It follows that this work is hampered by the remote location of some stations from the road, the design of some station buildings and inappropriate landscaping of station environments. Queensland Rail should focus on addressing these issues. It should also coordinate with other agencies to achieve improvements to station precincts. These improvements could stem from collaboration with other agencies.
206. The Brisbane City Council in its new strategic plan proposes transit oriented development with substantially increased densities around railway stations. This commonality of interest in providing safe and secure environments could provide the basis for jointly funded programs.
207. The committee urges Queensland Rail to work with other government agencies, local authorities and community groups to encourage social crime prevention initiatives that will benefit railway commuters.
RECOMMENDATION 7
That Queensland Rail works with other government agencies, local authorities and community groups to encourage social crime prevention solutions to security issues on the Citytrain network. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 8
That Queensland Rail undertakes Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) audits of Citytrain stations to maintain and improve those elements of design and the network environment, which enhance personal safety.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
Coordination and Control
208. There is an imbalance between policing responsibility and expertise, and the locus of control over expenditure on security for the Citytrain network. While police have the widest powers and training to deal with policing, Queensland Rail has financial responsibilities for the Citytrain security budget and the allocation of substantial resources. This extends to control over the overtime budget for the Police Rail Squad. The committee is concerned that this arrangement may not produce the best outcomes.
209. Police have a subordinate role in the security management of the railway. The Police Rail Squad is limited in its potential to regulate security issues on the network. (submission 31) Key decisions about security policy and expenditure decisions are made by Queensland Rail without police input, and Queensland Rail does not take independent expert advice on security management issues. The police submission questioned Queensland Rail’s funding decisions.
PAGE 44 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
In particular, it questions the basis for Queensland Rail’s heavy investment in CCTV surveillance equipment. This is discussed later in this part.
210. Coordination of personnel engaged in policing or security functions on the railway is a further issue. Up to four groups of personnel perform policing functions on the network at any time: the Police Rail Squad; Citytrain Protective Security officers; Citytrain ticket inspectors; and private security guards. Each group has a different scope to deal with security issues. The Citytrain Protective Services section within Queensland Rail coordinates the activities of these staff. Calls for assistance and the selection and deployment of personnel are largely dependent on communications through the train control staff at Queensland Rail’s Mayne Control depot.
211. The committee received conflicting evidence during this inquiry as to the nature of the working relationship between QPS and Queensland Rail. In its submission, Queensland Rail describes the Police Rail Squad as ‘unreliable’, with ‘inadequate resources’ and suggests that the ‘lack of direct control by Queensland Rail over the operations of the Police Rail Squad’ is a problem.( submission 12)
212. The Queensland Police Service submission states that pressure from Queensland Rail and an absence of clearly defined roles and responsibilities have resulted in the police attending incidents which could readily be resolved by Protective Services Officers and ticket inspectors. (submission 31) There are also differences in enforcement policies. As the inquiry progressed, it became apparent to the committee that the relationship between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service had improved and regular meetings at the senior management level had been initiated.
213. Representatives from Queensland Transport told the committee:-
Relationships between the four organisational security groupings are very good and regular planning meetings are held to discuss and implement strategy. Roles and responsibilities between organisational groups are generally very well documented and complementary. (submission 26)
214. However, Queensland Transport recognises ‘a need to review overall roles and responsibilities between organisations.’ The committee agrees.
215. The committee concludes that coordination between Queensland Rail and the Police Rail Squad is crucial to the effective policing of the Citytrain network, and that it could be better. As a first step, the committee urges that the roles and responsibilities of staff be defined and their overlapping functions identified.
216. A draft strategic security plan for the Citytrain network was prepared jointly by the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail in 1996. This plan seeks to provide ‘... a strategic direction for management of security for the Citytrain network over the next 5 years.’ (exhibit 4c) This document and its development process provide an ideal vehicle to resolve issues concerning the overlapping roles of officers of Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service. This plan should be finalised.
PAGE 45 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
RECOMMENDATION 9
That Queensland Rail and Queensland Transport finalize their strategic security plan for the Citytrain network and clarify their respective roles and responsibilities for security on the network. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads · Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing
Informing the Public
217. In Part 3, the committee discussed the factors that contribute to the fear of crime and the credence given by the public to media reporting of crime. One study (Elsworth 1997) links the public’s misconceived perceptions of safety on public transport with the lack of statistical data on actual crime levels.
218. With the exception of Queensland Transport’s audit report (Band 1996), the committee could not find factual, public information on the level of crime on railways in Queensland. It concludes that making such information widely available could help to allay unnecessary public fear. Reducing the fear of crime, and hence social isolation, might lead to a reduction in crime by increasing social interaction and the natural surveillance it brings, thus reducing criminal opportunities (Chappell 1995).
219. This was supported by comments in the Queensland Police Service submission. Police suggest that one of the major goals of marketing within Queensland Rail should be to dispel unrealistic public perceptions with respect to the level of crime on the network. The police submission (submission 31) also refers to the need to clearly enunciate to members of the public the initiatives which have been introduced, and states that it is important that members of the public understand the roles and functions of the various security providers. The police suggest that members of the public are unaware that a Police Rail Squad even exists. (submission 31) Marketing through both the media and within the Citytrain network may raise the profile of the squad and other security initiatives.
220. The need for information to counter public misconceptions was supported by Queensland Rail’s General Manager (Safety), Mr Kevin Band, in evidence to the committee:
At the moment, there is a perceived threat. We cannot argue with emotion. When we have some facts, I believe they will override the emotional element (Mr Band, transcript page 100).
221. Similarly, the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care suggested that information is needed to raise people’s awareness of actual risk. (submission 40) The Council of the Ageing suggested in its submission that information is needed about the statistical position of security for older persons and measures which the individual may take to feel more secure may increase people’s sense of security. (submission 17) To raise older people’s awareness of actual risks, the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care advocates advertisements in free local newspapers, libraries and organisations’ newsletters and magazines. (submission 40)
PAGE 46 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
222. The committee urges Queensland Rail to publish information on the incidence of crime on the Citytrain network and the risk to passengers in order to counter misconceptions and encourage informed debate. Ideally, this information should be issued periodically. Further, the committee encourages Queensland Rail to provide information on: minimising risks of crimes to empower passengers; the security initiatives that have been undertaken on the network; the roles and functions of the various security providers on the network; and on the location and use of equipment at stations and on trains to enhance security.
RECOMMENDATION 10
That Queensland Rail publishes information on the risk of crime on the Citytrain Network; guidelines to improve passenger safety and security; information on the security initiatives that have been undertaken on the network; the roles and functions of the various security providers on the network; and the location and use of equipment at stations and on trains to enhance security. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
Police Numbers
223. The police submission states that there are resourcing problems in the Police Rail Squad and that twenty-three officers is insufficient to provide the uniform presence that the memorandum of understanding described. The committee agrees.
224. The current strength of the Police Rail Squad in Queensland severely limits its ability to be pro- active and visible. The committee understands that as few as two officers have been available to cover the entire network at times, due to leave, transfers and other absences. This shortage of staff could also prevent the squad from adopting more efficient practices.
225. The entire squad is based at the Roma Street Railway Station. Officers can travel out to each job on the network, usually by car, return for lunch breaks and again at the end of their shift. This is inefficient and reduces the time those officers spend on the network. Zonal policing has been advocated for police work on railways to improve effectiveness. It is a popular community policing concept in the United States and involves deploying personnel from central headquarters to mini-stations. Since 1991, the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Police Department has used zonal policing to achieve a dramatic reduction (43 percent) in the incidence of serious crime on the City of Philadelphia Rail system (FBI Law Bulletin,1993).
226. The Police Rail squad is trialing zonal policing at Beenleigh. A small contingent of officers from the squad work from a satellite office at the Beenleigh Railway Station. The committee welcomes the trial and urges that further satellite stations be established if the trial proves effective. The implementation of zonal policing throughout the network will require more officers than the squad currently has.
227. From the Committee’s discussions with the Officer in Charge of the Police Rail Squad, Senior Sergeant Ian Limbach, the squad’s functions do not match the role envisaged in the memorandum of understanding. Rather than providing ‘a high profile uniform presence’ on the Citytrain network, the squad’s officers spend most of their time off the network investigating and documenting crimes that have already occurred. In its submission, the Transport Services
PAGE 47 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
Union has requested that the number of Rail Squad Police be increased to approximately 130. (submission 33) Queensland Rail would like to see the squad doubled. (transcript, page 70).
228. Inspector Harding of the Police Rail Squad told the committee:-
When you look at the staffing of the Victorian Transit Police and the New South Wales Railway Squad—they have 300 in New South Wales. It is certainly in excess of 200 in Melbourne. I went there in June last year and had a look at theirs. Their actual total number is closer to 300. Proportionately they have larger systems, obviously, and their patronage and carriage of passengers is much higher, but I would envisage that, by working from those figures of the station size and numbers and network size, we should be comparable to that. (Insp Harding, transcript page 18)
229. The committee notes that policing arrangements for railways in New South Wales and Victoria are vastly different to Queensland. Most notably, railway police in the other states also police other public transport systems such as buses, trams and ferries. In Queensland, the Police Rail Squad is only responsible for the railways, and the Citytrain network in particular. A further factor is the role of railway staff. In Queensland, authorised railway officers play a much greater role in policing the railway than in other states. The role of authorised officers is discussed in part 6 of this report. These authorised railway officers, however, do not have arrest, detention, search and move-on powers which are exclusive police powers. In terms of police who have these powers and who are dedicated to transit policing in each jurisdiction, Queensland with 23 officers has the least, compared to Victoria with 234, Western Australia with 95, New South Wales with 300 and South Australia with 77. Consequently, there are very few security personnel deployed on the railways in Queensland who have these powers.
230. The committee is reluctant to draw conclusions as to the need for additional police in the Police Railway Squad based on a simple comparison of interstate squad sizes. It concludes, however, that there is a strong case for additional police to ensure that a reasonable contingent of officers is available for deployment throughout the network from the first to the last service. It therefore recommends that the size of the Police Rail Squad be reviewed.
RECOMMENDATION 11
That the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail review the staffing levels of the Police Rail Squad to ensure that the squad has sufficient officers to provide the ‘high profile uniformed policing presence’ stipulated in the memorandum of understanding between the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Police & Corrective Services and Minister for Racing · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
PAGE 48 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
The Effectiveness of CCTV Surveillance
231. In Part 4, the committee discussed the efficacy of CCTV as a crime prevention tool. In short, the committee found little published research that is supportive. The committee also gathered evidence from its submissions, exhibits and hearings during this inquiry. The following sections discuss this further evidence.
Inquiry Evidence That is Supportive of CCTV
232. Queensland Transport provided the committee with the report by Band (1996) from his safety audit of Queensland Rail. This work was completed while he was manager of the department’s Rail Safety Accreditation Unit. In the report, Band comments on Queensland Rail’s introduction of CCTV surveillance technology to the Citytrain network. He sees Queensland Rail’s focus on surveillance cameras at stations and on trains as producing excellent results. He states:-
Following an incident, surveillance cameras allow security staff to watch video footage and assist the police in catching culprits…It must be noted that Citytrain’s plan to fit surveillance cameras is most commendable and currently way ahead of UK and European railways. Even in America, cameras are only widely used in major problem areas where crime levels are rife compared with Australia…there is further potential to use surveillance equipment proactively (Band 1996).
233. Information provided by Queensland Rail from an international survey of railway operators shows that CCTV is used widely by railways, in Australia and elsewhere, for security surveillance. Queensland Rail is the only railway on which train guards monitor the CCTV images from cameras on board their trains.
234. Draper told the committee that CCTV can be effective in deterring drug offences, in particular the actual transaction which takes place, provided the quality of the image is such that it can be used later in evidence. (transcript, page 31)
235. Queensland Rail told the committee that installation of cameras in car parks has reduced thefts by up to 90 percent in some areas (transcript, page 53) and that cameras had led to a significant reduction in graffiti. (transcript, page 55)
236. In its submission based on the practical experience of its members who work on the railway, the Railway Service Union states:-
R.S.U members report a decrease of up to 90% in incidents when cameras are installed at staffed stations. This figure increases again when staff are withdrawn or hours of attendance reduced. (submission 33)
237. Snr Sgt Limbach told the committee that the films from the stations have resulted in ‘quite a large number of arrests’. (transcript, page 7) Examples of these arrests were cited for the committee by Queensland Rail.
Inquiry Evidence Not Supportive of CCTV
238. The enthusiasm of Queensland Rail and its staff for CCTV is not widely supported, particularly by the Queensland Police Service.
PAGE 49 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
239. The Queensland Police Service submission and statements by officers at the committee’s hearings were not supportive of CCTV in general, or Queensland Rail’s CCTV program. Its submission states:-
The low quality of the CCTVs prevents police from using the system to its full potential as identification of offenders is often not possible and therefore there is limited use for recorded instances as evidence in court. (submission 31)
240. The committee pursued this further at its public hearing and was told:-
…That may well get back to the quality of the camera that is installed in the car parks. (transcript, page 7)
241. The committee understands that some cameras installed in the first phases of the system on Citytrain give poor quality images and that this has been rectified. Further on CCTV surveillance of car parks, Snr Sgt Limbach told the committee:-
Whether you go to the extent of having up to 50 cameras in the car park is debatable. In my view, that many cameras in a car park is not necessary. The main thing is to have a camera in a position where it can take a clear shot of a would-be car thief, and that obviously would be an exit or an entry point. To cover some of the larger car parks and to have 50 cameras running is probably a bit of overkill and, realistically, it does not assist police in prosecuting car thieves, because the resolution over those 50 cameras is not good enough. (Snr Sgt Limbach, transcript page 7) The committee notes that the Citytrain station with the most car park CCTV cameras is Nerang Station with 42 cameras. A total of 377 CCTV cameras are installed at 20 station car parks throughout the network.
242. On the costs of extracting evidence from video tapes, Snr Sgt Limbach warned the committee about the costs of supporting the technology:-
The other issue with cameras, and what a lot of people do not understand, is that a lot of them are multiplex. That means you have a number of cameras coming into one tape…For someone to actually physically sit down and extract that frame and bring it into what we might call a normal tape requires real-time viewing. That means that you have a technician looking through three hours of tape, but he is actually looking at 24 hours or whatever the time lapse is. That is a major problem and it is a very costly problem to have technicians to do that. (transcript, page 18) Be careful when you are considering CCTV that you do not extend the capabilities of organisations to actually support the technology that you are putting in. (transcript, page 19)
243. Further, on the evidentiary value of CCTV, Inspector Watson of the Police Rail Squad told the committee: -
It does fail in terms of credibility in prosecutions. (transcript, page 19)
244. On the deterrent value, Watson said: -
A comparison might be made with money institutions where cameras were installed initially and the incidence of armed robberies did not reduce. They chose to particularise and stand an individual at the front of the premises. (transcript, page 19)
PAGE 50 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
245. Mr Ross Draper, an independent security consultant, told the committee: -
As far as being a deterrent against assault, all the research suggests that that is not the case, particularly when the cameras are used in isolation. There is some enhanced deterrent effect where signage is involved. If you are just talking about putting a camera up and not putting a signpost on it, there is very little deterrent effect. (transcript, page 31)
246. Draper also warned that there may be some litigation aspects that Queensland Rail may be exposed to ‘because of the perception that the public now feels safe, so they drop their guard, as it were, because there is a camera there’. (transcript, page 31)
The Committee’s Conclusions on CCTV
247. As discussed in Part 4, there is some support for the use of CCTV in conjunction with other security measures where there is signage to indicate that it is operating. Most research, however, suggests that crime prevention value of CCTV is, at best, unknown. A number of studies also suggest that other security measures may be more effective and less expensive.
248. The evidence taken by the committee from submissions, exhibits and hearings for this inquiry presents conflicting indications of the worth of CCTV surveillance technology for the Citytrain network to gather evidence and assist prosecutions. The committee noted, in particular, the evidence from Queensland Rail and the Railway Services Union that reductions in crimes followed the installation of CCTV at stations and car parks. Because CCTV surveillance was implemented on the Citytrain network together with other measures such as improved fencing and lighting, increased police patrols and media publicity of increased security, it is difficult to isolate the deterrence value of cameras. The evidence on the worth of CCTV images of offenders in obtaining prosecutions is unclear. The committee was told by police that it has ‘resulted in quite a large number of arrests’ (transcript, page 7), yet ‘fail(s) in terms of credibility in prosecutions’. (transcript, page 19)
249. The scale of Queensland Rail’s investment, in the absence of clear, empirical evidence of the efficacy of CCTV surveillance in preventing crime, is a concern. Further issues include the value of CCTV evidence in prosecutions, the high establishment and on-going costs of the technology and the availability of other, cheaper crime prevention methods.
250. The committee concludes that it is imperative that Queensland Rail evaluate its CCTV program for the Citytrain network before expanding the present system. It also recommends that signage be provided at Citytrain stations and in trains to alert patrons to the surveillance. This provides important privacy safeguards as well as improving the deterrence value of the cameras.
251. Finally, the need to protect the privacy of people who are captured on CCTV surveillance equipment was noted in Part 4. As an example, the committee cited a draft code of conduct being developed by retailers for CCTV in retail settings. The committee encourages Queensland Rail to examine the retailers association draft code as a basis for refining its protocols for managing, auditing and using video surveillance evidence. The committee noted during the course of the inquiry that images of security incidents recorded from CCTV cameras at Citytrain stations had been made available to the media and broadcast. The impact of media reporting of individual crimes on the railway was discussed in Part 3. The committee suggests that it may be inappropriate for Queensland Rail to permit its CCTV evidence of particular
PAGE 51 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
incidents to be used in this way. As well as the privacy implications, it is also likely to alarm the public. The committee urges that Queensland Rail reviews its protocols for managing, auditing and using video surveillance evidence captured by CCTV cameras on the Citytrain network.
RECOMMENDATION 12
That the efficacy of Queensland Rail’s Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance program for the Citytrain network be externally evaluated. This evaluation should include: an examination of the costs and benefits of the CCTV systems (capital and on-going costs); a pre and post-evaluation of the deterrence value of CCTV at stations; and a review of the general operation of the system.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 13
That Queensland Rail provides signage at Citytrain stations and in trains notifying passengers of the use of CCTV surveillance. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 14
That Queensland Rail Reviews its protocols for managing, auditing and using video surveillance evidence captured by CCTV cameras on the Citytrain network.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
Viability of Late Night Train Services
252. Queensland Rail is funded to run Citytrain services through Community Service Obligation payments. It receives these payments irrespective of the level of patronage that the services attract, and in the absence of competition. In various evidence, Queensland Rail advised the committee that patronage for Guardian Trains has risen between 6 and 9 percent since these special services were introduced. Queensland Rail, however, did not provide the committee with actual patronage figures for the services. The committee suspects that patronage is still low.
253. Since the incidence of certain crimes peak at low traveller density times, such as late at night, a primary way of reducing opportunities for criminal acts is to close stations and cease running night time trains. (Esteal & Wilson, 1991; 21) In Sydney, ‘Nightrider’ buses have run in lieu of late night train services since 1989. The buses follow the train routes and stop at railway stations or other well lit public place where there are public telephones. Because of the relative intimacy of bus travel (one staff per carriage) compared with rail travel (in Brisbane, 2 staff per 6 carriages) security problems on the buses appear to be fewer.
PAGE 52 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
254. The move to late night buses in Sydney also saved the New South Wales Government around $2 million annually in its payment to public rail subsidies. The ‘Nightrider’ bus services are popular with users. The savings in public transport subsidies are used to fund Nightrider services in areas not serviced by rail. Queensland Transport’s Integrated Regional Transport Plan points to an alternative solution at off peak times and particularly evenings, which is to move towards more non-mass transit forms of transport. This includes the use of door to door transport and demand responsive bus services. (Mr Tomsett, transcript page 46).
255. The committee encourages Queensland Transport to examine its approach to funding Queensland Rail’s Citytrain services, particularly late night train services. As an alternative, It should explore the feasibility of subsidising other public transport options such as services such as the ‘Nightrider’ services in Sydney, door to door transport and demand-responsive bus services.
RECOMMENDATION 15
That Queensland Transport examines its approach to funding late night train services on the Citytrain network and considers other public transport options.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
CONCLUSIONS
256. Security management of the Citytrain network is dominated by Queensland Rail with the Queensland Police Service playing a subordinate role. Queensland Rail has failed to avail itself of the expertise within the Police Rail Squad and other areas of the service, or the expertise of external security experts. As a result, the committee is concerned that Queensland rail’s policies may not represent the best outcome for the railway or its passengers.
257. It appears that Queensland Rail has pursued strategies based on what other railways in Australia have implemented, with little regard to empirical research findings. Its security strategies have received little external scrutiny, and may be flawed.
258. Queensland Rail has implemented a number of strategies concurrently to improve security on the network. consequently, it is extremely difficult to gauge the effectiveness or efficiency of each individual strategy. The committee is concerned about a number of issues concerning the security management and policing of the Citytrain network. these include: the heavy emphasis on CCTV surveillance; the allocation of priority to stations for security upgrades based on passenger throughput rather than risk; the need to implement CPTED security audits; and the inadequate coordination of police and other security staff on the railways.
259. The Queensland Police Service has undertaken to provide a high profile policing presence on the network through the establishment of a Police Rail Squad. However, with only 23 officers, substantial commitments off the network and counter-productive travel arrangements during work shifts, the committee questions whether the squad can provide a viable pro-active policing presence. The committee concludes that staffing levels within the Police Rail Squad should be reviewed.
PAGE 53 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 5 ~ SECURING AND POLICING THE CITYTRAIN NETWORK PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 54 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS
INTRODUCTION
260. Part 6 examines the powers of authorised officers or authorised persons for railways that are prescribed in legislation for jurisdictions with urban rail systems: Queensland; Victoria; New South Wales; South Australia and Western Australia. These powers are summarised in table form for ease of comparison at Appendix D to this report.
261. Each jurisdiction provides varying degrees of power to authorised railway staff to ensure the safety and comfort of passengers and the good running of the railway. These include: the power to require name and address; the power to search and inspect; the power to arrest; the power to remove offenders; and seizure powers. Victoria provides the most comprehensive powers for railway staff.
WHO ARE AUTHORISED OFFICERS?
262. In each jurisdiction, the definition of ‘authorised officer’ or ‘authorised person’ includes police officers and other persons authorised by the relevant rail authority.
263. In Queensland, an authorised person refers to a police officer or a person appointed by the Chief Executive of Queensland Rail. The Committee notes that private security guards are not authorised persons.
264. In New South Wales, the relevant definition of an authorised person in the Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulations 1994 means an officer or employee of the State Rail Authority (SRA); or a person authorised in writing by the SRA; or a police officer.
265. Similarly, in South Australia, under r.3 of the Passenger Transport (Regular Passenger Services; Conduct of Passengers) Regulations 1994, an authorised person means: an employee of TransAdelaide; or a train driver; or an authorised officer under s.53 of the Passenger Transport Act (PTA); a police officer; or any other person authorised by the Passenger Transport Board to exercise the powers of an authorised person under the regulations. Section 57 PTA provides a separate definition of the prescribed person.
266. In Victoria the Transport (Public Transport Corporation) Regulations 1994 defines an authorised person as any person employed ‘in relation to the issue, inspection or collection of tickets or the operation of a rail or road vehicle’; or the ‘inspection or supervision of rail or road vehicles’; or police officer; or any other person appointed or authorised by the Corporation for the purposes of Part VII of the Act. A separate definition of authorised person applies in relation to the power to obtain name and address in Victoria under s.218B.
PAGE 55 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
267. In Western Australia, enforcement responsibilities lie with the Special Constables, known collectively as the Railway Police. Except for railway police management (who are contracted to WestRail), the railway police are employed directly by WestRail. Although not appointed police officers, the railway police perform similar functions as the transit police in other jurisdictions. Under by-law 94, railway constables have the same ‘powers, authorities and immunities’ as ‘appointed members of the police’. Customer service assistants appointed as authorised railway persons may also issue infringement notices as defined in s.53(11) of the Government Railways Act 1904.
HOW MANY AUTHORISED OFFICERS ARE THERE?
268. As discussed above, authorised officers for railways include both police and staff employed by the railways.
269. In Western Australia, WestRail, employs 95 railway constables, 35 customer service assistants and 8 ticket inspectors.
270. In Victoria, the Public Transport Corporation employs 60 Revenue Protection Officers (RPOs) and 150 Customer Service Employees (CSEs) as authorised persons. Revenue Protection Officers serve infringement notices. To defuse volatile situations, the infringement notice is sent in the mail after the RPO has obtained the offender’s name and address. The Victorian Transit police number 234 and are dedicated to patroling buses, trams and trains in the Melbourne Metropolitan area. They respond to calls from CSEs.
271. TransAdelaide in South Australia employs a number of officers to support the protection of revenue as well as attend to customer service and deal with passenger behaviour. Different classifications have defined limits of authority. TransAdelaide aims to have all Passenger Service Assistants (PSAs) deemed prescribed officers pursuant to the Passenger Transport Act 1994. There are currently eight Senior PSAs who can issue expiation notices to ticketing and behavioural offenders. A further 39 PSAs undertake visual checks of tickets and also speak to passengers participating in anti-social behaviour. Where possible, these PSAs obtain offender details and forward them on to the Passenger Transport Board Expiation Section to determine whether an expiation notice should be issued by post. There are six officers employed in the expiation section. (exhibit 6) The Transit Division is part of the South Australian Police Department and its officers patrol the public transport systems (train, bus & tram). These officers are deemed ‘prescribed officers’ pursuant to the Passenger Transport Act 1994, and can issue expiation notices for fare evasion and behavioural offences detailed in the act. The division has 77 officers.
272. In New South Wales, railway staff currently exercise relatively few powers. Only those officers working as revenue protection officers in New South Wales have the power to issue infringement notices. The NSW Police Service has a target of 300 positions to be dedicated to transit policing duties. As at January 1998, there were 297 positions and 248 transit police actually appointed.
273. In Queensland, railway staff are authorised to exercise various powers according to nominated levels of authorisation. The Chief Executive of Queensland Rail has a delegated power to appoint authorised officers within Queensland Rail. Table 10 provides a breakdown of authorised officers appointed under the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act.
PAGE 56 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
274. The Queensland Railway Police Squad has 23 police. However, as far as the committee was able to determine, Queensland has more railway staff with authorised powers than any other jurisdiction. Completion of relevant training is a prerequisite for appointment as an authorised person. 571 Queensland Rail Staff have been trained and appointed as authorised persons. Currently, only officers working in Queensland Rail’s Citytrain Protective Services and Revenue Protection areas have the power to issue infringement notices. This includes ticket inspectors and investigators in Protective Services.
Table 10: Establishment figures of Queensland Rail staff to be registered as Authorised Persons upon completion of training, March 1998 .
CATEGORY LEVEL CLASSIFICATION TRAINED NOT TOTAL POWERS TRAINED Customer 1 Porters 97 67 164 · Power to require Relations production of a Officer ticket (and concession card if applicable) Customer 2 Group Station 12 6 18 · Power to require Relations Master production of a Officer ticket/card Station Master 49 49 98 · Power to require name, address and Station Officer 71 42 113 age · Power to require CBD Platform 128 4 132 information from Foreman, Guard, persons Passenger · Power to require Services person to leave a Supervisor train Customer 3 Ticket Inspectors 41 13 50 · Power to require Relations production to a Officer Protective 14 0 14 ticket/card Services Division · Power to require name, address and Group Station 9 9 18 age Masters · Power to require information from Station Masters 17 81 98 persons · Power to require a Station Officer 21 92 113 person to leave a train Guards 112 208 320 · Power to issue on the spot fines
Source: Queensland Rail 1998
Private Security Guards
275. Queensland Rail also employs the services of private security firms and police officers for various security tasks including Guardian Trains and special events. Compared to police officers, however, private security guards are not authorised officers and cannot issue infringement notices. On average, 21 private security officers are employed by Queensland Rail. They are employed on a needs basis which is constantly reviewed (exhibit 12). No
PAGE 57 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
private security guards are employed by TransAdelaide or Westrail. In New South Wales and Victoria, security guards are employed to patrol train stabling compounds.
Conclusion
276. As far as the committee is able to determine, Queensland has more railway staff appointed as authorised persons than any other jurisdiction in Australia. A higher proportion of Queensland Rail staff have enforcement powers relative to railway staff in other states. As discussed in Part 5 in relation to police numbers, Queensland also has considerably fewer police devoted to the railways. Private Security guards provide a further security presence on Queensland railways but have no authority to enforce railway offences.
WHAT ARE THEIR POWERS?
277. This section examines differences in the powers that are ascribed to authorised officers: power to require name and address; to serve infringement notices; to search and inspect; to seize; to remove offenders; and to arrest. It also discusses the general powers of police.
Power to Require Name and Address
278. In each jurisdiction authorised officers have the power to require names and addresses of persons suspected of or committing an offence, though the legal tests are different.
279. In Queensland (s.137 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act) an authorised person must ‘find or suspect’ a person of committing an offence.
280. In New South Wales (r.41 Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulation 1994) and South Australia (s.57 Passenger Transport Act 1994) a suspicion is all that is necessary for an authorised person to require name and address. In South Australia this power is only available to police officers and prescribed officers (that is, a person authorised by the Board to exercise powers under s.57 of the PTA). In New South Wales this power is available to authorised persons. An authorised person refers to a police officer, or an employee of the SRA or RAC, or a person authorised in writing by the SRA or RAC.
281. In Victoria (s.218B Transport Act) an authorised officer may only request the name and address if the authorised person or member of the police force ‘believes on reasonable grounds that the person has committed or is about to commit an offence against the Transport Act or regulations’. According to s.218(1) and s.218B an authorised officer is one who has been appointed in writing.
282. In Western Australia, By-law 27 provides that a railway employee may require a person to provide that person’s name and address and verify to the employee that the name and address is correct. This power supplements the powers exercised by WestRail’s Special Constables.
Power to Serve Infringement Notices
283. Each state provides that an authorised person or officer may serve infringement notices.
PAGE 58 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
284. South Australia specifically provides that expiation notices may be served by a police officer, a person authorised in writing by the ‘Board’ or a person who satisfies criteria determined by the Passenger Transport Board for the purposes of the regulations. Similarly, in New South Wales, this power is specifically reserved for authorised persons who have been appointed in writing by the Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority. In Western Australia persons authorised to issue infringement notices are appointed in writing by Westrail.
Power to Search and Inspect
285. In Queensland and Western Australia, the powers to search and inspect are police powers only. In this respect, railway constables in Western Australia are able to exercise these powers.
286. In New South Wales, certain authorised railway staff and transit police (s.98 Transport Administration Act) have broad ranging powers to stop, search and inspect persons or any goods in possession of any person. However, in practice there are no authorised persons in the SRA who have been appointed with these powers. Responsibility for transit policing was transferred from the State Rail Authority (SRA) to the New South Wales Police Service in April 1989. In effect, the power to search and inspect only applies to the New South Wales Transit Police.
287. In Victoria, certain railway staff (s.218 Transport Act) have powers to stop, search and inspect persons or any goods in possession of any person. The authorised officer must reasonably believe that that person is involved in an offence against the Transport Act or regulations. Section 218(1) further defines an authorised officer. An authorised officer may also demand the production of consignment notes, delivery dockets or other documents relating to the receipt or ownership of the goods, and take or impound any goods found as a result of search and inspection. Any person who refuses or fails to comply with any of these requirements is guilty of an offence and liable to a maximum penalty of $1000.
288. In South Australia, under r.24(3) of the Passenger Transport (Regular Passenger Services; Conduct of Passengers) Regulations 1994, authorised persons have a limited power to search and inspect. Where an authorised person suspects a person of possessing a bag or parcel which contains a dangerous or offensive object or substance, the authorised person may require the person to open the bag or parcel for inspection or to examine the contents. In other cases, a member of the police force may search and take anything found on any person and may use such force as is reasonably necessary (s.81(1) Summary Offences Act).
Seizure Powers
289. Authorised railway officers in Queensland do not have the power to seize property from offenders. This power is only available to police.
290. In Victoria, s.223C of the Transport Act 1983 (TA) gives police officers and other authorised officers the authority to seize graffiti implements in the possession of a person on property owned by the Public Transport Corporation or on adjacent property, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the graffiti implement is intended to be used, or has been used, to mark graffiti on that property. Under s.223D, where a person is convicted of a graffiti offence under the Transport Act 1983, a court may order that any graffiti implements seized from the person be destroyed.
PAGE 59 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
291. In South Australia, any authorised person in accordance with the definition, may confiscate implements and report an offender for a graffiti offence. However, the issuing of an expiation notice must be undertaken by a police officer or an authorised person with prescribed powers.
292. However in Western Australia, under s.50 of Government Railways Act 1904 any officer or servant of the department or WestRail may ‘summarily interfere to obviate or remove’ a danger or annoyance. Again in Victoria, s.220 of the Transport Act 1983, provides that a police officer or officer or agent of the Corporation, may remove property from a person or take other action where it is necessary to ‘obviate or remove the danger’.
Power to Remove Offenders
293. There are varying powers for authorised staff to remove offenders from railways. These powers are discussed in the following sections in regard to the use of reasonable force, fare evasion and other matters. Except for New South Wales, each state makes it an offence to fail to comply with a direction to leave and in that case an authorised person may remove the person. In New South Wales, railway staff do not have any power to remove offenders although it is an offence to ignore a direction to leave. The power to remove offenders is a police power only. In Western Australia, the railway police may exercise police powers in this regard.
Reasonable Force
294. Authorised persons in Queensland may use reasonable force if a person fails to comply with a request to leave. In South Australia, a police officer or a person authorised by the Board to exercise powers of removal may use reasonable force. However, in Western Australia, a person may be removed from a railway carriage by any officer or servant of the department or Westrail. In Victoria, r.324 provides that an authorised person may remove any person who fails to comply with a request to leave a vehicle or premises. However, s.220 of the TA also provides that a police officer or any officer or agent of the Corporation may ‘summarily remove’ a person who has committed an offence against the act and regulations where that act is ‘...attended with danger and annoyance’ (as discussed below).
295. in Queensland, s.140 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 1994 provides that an authorised person may direct a person to leave a railway if the person is found creating a disturbance, travelling without paying a fare, travelling on invalid tickets or trespassing on a railway. There is a proviso that the direction must not be given if obeying the direction could put the person’s safety at risk. Otherwise, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, the person must obey the direction. An authorised person may use reasonable force to remove the person.
Fare Evasion
296. In regard to ticketing offences, each state (except New South Wales) provides that, where a person refuses or is unable to pay the correct fare or charge, an authorised person may request that person to leave the train or railway premises. Similarly, a person may be removed where that person is travelling on an invalid ticket.
Loaded Carriage
PAGE 60 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
297. In Victoria (r.324 PTCR), South Australia (r.38) and Western Australia (By-law 18) a person may also be removed if upon entering a train the carriage is fully loaded. Western Australia provides for an exception where consent has been obtained from the passengers of the carriage.
Creating a Disturbance
298. As discussed above, s.140 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 provides that in Queensland, an authorised person may direct a person to leave a railway where that person is creating a disturbance under s.141 of the Act. Under certain circumstances, the authorised person may use reasonable force to remove the person.
299. However, both Victoria (s.220 Transport Act 1983) and Western Australia (s.50 Government Railways Act 1904) provide for removal of offenders in circumstances where a breach of the legislation is attended with danger and annoyance to the public (or any person in Western Australia) or, in Victoria, a hindrance to any member of the police force, or agent or officer of the Public Transport Corporation. In Victoria, the member of the police force or agent of the Corporation may summarily remove the person and take any other action that is necessary to ‘obviate or remove the danger’. Similarly, in Western Australia, any officer or servant of the Department of Transport or Westrail may summarily interfere to obviate or remove the person causing the danger or annoyance. In Victoria, the person in these cases may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
300. Section 56(8) of the South Australian Passenger Transport Act, provides that a police officer or person authorised by the Passenger Transport Board may exercise reasonable force to remove a person where that person has conducted themselves in a disorderly manner and refused to leave the train when requested to do so.
301. South Australia’s r.38(1)(a) of the Passenger Transport (Regular Passenger Service; Conduct of Passengers) Regulations 1994 also stipulates that a person found committing an offence against the Passenger Transport Act and regulations may be requested to leave a train or railway premises by an authorised person. It is an offence to fail to comply with this request and a member of the police force, or a person authorised by the Board, to exercise these powers, may exercise reasonable force to remove the person.
Drugs and Alcohol
302. In South Australia, an authorised person may request that a person who appears intoxicated or under the influence of a drug leave the railway.
Soiled Person
303. In Victoria and South Australia, an authorised person may request a person to leave if the person’s condition or clothing may soil or damage railway premises.
Trespass
304. In Queensland, s.277(1) of the Criminal Code allows a person in peaceable possession of land to use such force as is reasonably necessary to prevent a person from ‘wrongfully entering or remaining’ on such land. Given that railway stations are public places with ‘unrestricted pedestrian access’, identifying a person who has wrongfully entered and/or remained on such
PAGE 61 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
land is a matter of interpretation. It is argued that a person who is merely loitering on a station is not in breach of these provisions.
305. Queensland Rail submits that it would be more appropriate to develop ‘move-on’ powers in the transport legislation. This would empower authorised persons (including police) to remove persons from the rail network ‘who are suspected of loitering with the intent of doing harm to either persons or property’. At this stage, offenders who have been removed from the railway and charged are lawfully entitled to ‘immediately re-enter’ the network. Queensland Rail suggests the legislation be amended to enable it to ‘exclude persistent offenders’. (exhibit 11)
306. Section 277(2) of the Criminal Code provides that a person who has lawfully entered the land and then conducted him or herself in a disorderly manner, may be removed with such force as is reasonably necessary. Sections 140 and 141 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 similarly provides for authorised Queensland Rail staff to remove persons engaging in nuisance behaviour. In effect, s.277(2) of the Criminal Code adds little to the powers of railway staff in Queensland. (exhibit 10)
307. In South Australia, s.17A of the Summary Offences Act provides that an authorised person may ask a person to leave where that person is trespassing on premises and interfering with the occupier’s enjoyment of those premises. That person is guilty of an offence if he/she fails to leave immediately or returns within 24 hours. In theory, this power is open to any railway person. In reality only prescribed persons have the power to request a person’s name and address. As discussed above, determining whether the elements of trespass have been met is a matter of interpretation. Similar trespass provisions exist in New South Wales and Victoria.
308. It is also worth noting that there are common law principles in all jurisdictions which permit an owner or occupier to remove a trespasser where the owner/occupier has asked the person to leave.
Power of Arrest
309. In each state, there are varying conditions permitting either an authorised railway officer or police officer to arrest without a warrant.
310. In relation to railway offences committed in Queensland, s.147 of the Transport Infrastructure Act (TIA) provides that a police officer may only arrest without a warrant if the police officer reasonably believes the person has just committed an offence against s.107 TIA (obstruction of an authorised officer) or s.146 TIA (trespass) or any railway offences of the Criminal Code.
311. Under s.34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 all Queensland Rail employees and other persons working on behalf of Queensland Rail and any police officer, may arrest and detain any person who has committed or attempted to board a train without a ticket, or has travelled beyond the point paid for on the ticket. The person is detained until brought before the court to be dealt with according to the law. The committee understands that this section is not well known or used by police or rail staff. (submission 44)
312. In South Australia, police officers are the only authorised persons with power of arrest. Under s.76 of the Summary Offences Act, the owner or agent or servant of any property may ‘apprehend’ any person found committing an offence on or with respect to that property. This
PAGE 62 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
is not a general power of arrest. Following the apprehension of the person the owner or agent or servant must deliver the offender forthwith into the custody of a member of the police force to be dealt with according to the law.
313. In Victoria, the ‘citizens arrest’ provisions of the Crimes Act have recently been incorporated in s.219 of the Transport Act 1983. These amendments to s.219 and s.219A of the Transport Act were proclaimed on 1 January 1998. A police officer or any agent or officer of the Public Transport Corporation may arrest a person without warrant if the member, officer or agent believes on reasonable grounds that that person has committed an offence against the Act or regulations and that it is necessary for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) to ensure the appearance of the person before a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(b) to preserve public order; or
(c) to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of a further offence; or
(d) for the safety or welfare of members of the public or of the person.
314. If the offender is arrested for a summary offence he or she may only be detained for as long as one of the above reasons for the arrest continues to exist. The member, officer or agent may also ask any person for assistance in the arrest of the offender. If the person is detained by a person who is not a member of the police force, the person must give the offender into the charge of the police force as soon as is practicable after his/her arrest. If detained by a member of the police force, the offender must be brought before a bail justice or the Magistrates’ Court to be dealt with according to the law. There is also provision for the Public Transport Corporation (PTC) to authorise officers to convey people arrested to a bail justice or Magistrates Court. There are currently 3 officers who have been appointed with this power. Section 219 TA incorporates s.458 of the Crimes Act.
315. Under s.219A TA, an officer authorised in writing by the PTC may also arrest a person found on property owned or occupied by the Corporation if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has a warrant for his/her arrest or a warrant to imprison. The arresting officer must take the person to a member of the police force as soon as practicable.
316. In Western Australia, s.49 of the Government Railway Act provides that a police officer or constable, or any officer or servant of the Department of Transport (Westrail), may arrest and detain a person and take him before justices of the peace in the following circumstances: trespass; drunk or violent or offensive behaviour to the annoyance of others; does or attempts to do, or counsels, aids or assists another person to do anything which may endanger the lives of railway employees and/or passengers; or, offends against any provision of the Act or by-law, and refuses to give his/her name and address as requested or provides a false name and address. The railway police are also able to exercise the arrest powers available to the police.
317. In New South Wales, railway staff do not have any powers of arrest. This power is only available to the police.
PAGE 63 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
General Police Powers
318. In addition to the railway powers discussed above, general police powers in each jurisdiction give police the power to search, inspect and seize evidence, and remove and arrest offenders. In Western Australia, the special constables predominantly utilise these powers. In New South Wales police enforce the railway legislation.
319. In Queensland, new legislation has been enacted to increase police powers. The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act Queensland 1997 was assented to on the 1 December 1997. Under s.88 of that Act, Queensland police have powers to request that persons move on in specific circumstances. The person may be directed not to return to a ‘notified area’ within 24 hours. The direction must not be given where it ‘interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly unless it is reasonably necessary in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of a person’s rights and freedoms’.
320. A direction to move-on may be given if a person’s behaviour (s.83(1)(a)) or presence (s.84(1)(a)) causes anxiety to a person entering or leaving a place. In particular, this specifically includes circumstances where ‘youths are gathering around a path near the entrance to a railway station tunnel and causing anxiety to any person by abusing any person who wants to use the tunnel to get to a train’. (Explanatory Memorandum for the Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 1997 p.66) Similarly, disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening behaviour directed towards anyone who is entering, in or leaving a place, is also cause for a direction to move on (s.83(1)(c)). This is exemplified in the situation where ‘youths gather around the entrance to a railway station or by menace demand something from, a person who wants to catch a train or wants to leave a railway station.’
CONCLUSIONS
General
321. In each state, railway staff with the appropriate authority have the power to require names and addresses of offenders and to serve infringement notices. The Committee notes that, although railway staff have these powers, the reality is that an offender who refuses to supply his/her name and address cannot be dealt with unless and until police arrive. (submission 44)
322. Railway staff in New South Wales have few powers except for the power to issue infringement notices and request name and address. At the time of printing, the committee was advised of the possibility of new regulations coming into effect in April 1998 to redress this imbalance. Railway constables in Western Australia have prime responsibility for ensuring personal safety on the railway network. In South Australia, it is the practice that the Transit Police patrol the railway, and in the event that the police are unavailable, railway staff may take action. In Victoria, the Transit Police patrol railways and respond to calls from the CSEs (mobile station staff).
323. The committee accepts that prime responsibility for law enforcement lies with the police but recognises that authorised officers also have a key role. At present all authorised officers are required to complete a course of training before being appointed as an authorised person. However, the committee recommends improving the communication skills of authorised railway
PAGE 64 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
staff by developing and implementing training on alternative dispute resolution, mediation and negotiation skills.
324. Queensland has the highest number of authorised officers or authorised persons who are railway officers of any Australian jurisdiction. The following sections discuss the committee’s conclusions regarding seizure, arrest and move-on powers of authorised officers.
Seizure Powers
325. In Queensland, the power to search and inspect is available only to police. While in Western Australia, both police and Special Constables attached to the railway have these powers. In South Australia, railway staff have the power to search and inspect only if a person is suspected of possessing a dangerous or offensive object. Extensive search and inspect powers are available to railway staff in Victoria and New South Wales, although no railway staff have been appointed to exercise these powers in New South Wales.
326. In Victoria, authorised persons have the power to seize graffiti implements. Victoria and Western Australia are the only states where railway staff have the power to seize any ‘danger or annoyance’. In Western Australia, the committee understands that this power has minimal application. There are also limited powers in South Australia.
327. The committee notes concerns arising due to the fact that Queensland railway staff have no ‘specific powers to actually hold or detain an offender, or seize any weapon or any exhibit from an offender at the scene of an offence’. (transcript, page 82) In this respect, Queensland Rail argues that its staff have limited powers to ‘exercise any form of diligence’. (transcript, page 84) An authorised officer may request a person to leave a railway where that person is creating a disturbance simply by possessing a knife or other weapon (s.140 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994). As discussed above, there is however no power to detain the offender until the police arrive.
328. There are a number of arguments against extending the powers of authorised railway officers. In particular, there are implications for: accountability and control; increased costs (infrastructure, wages, training and additional personnel to oversee accountability measures); civil litigation (unlawful detention, deprivation of liberty or assault); conflict of detention and arrest powers regarding security officers and police; and an increased rate of prosecution resulting in an added burden on police (submission 31).
329. The committee further notes that in Victoria and New South Wales security officers were primarily introduced to provide security on the network. The scheme failed and, as a consequence of misconduct, corruption and public complaint, these groups were disbanded and the provision of security on the networks was returned to the police’ (submission 31).
330. In light of these concerns the committee recommends that the Government reviews the powers of authorised persons to include wider search, inspection and seizure powers. The committee notes with concern that graffiti offences are among the most prevalent offences committed on Queensland railways. Providing authorised persons with a power to remove graffiti implements from offenders is therefore a valid consideration.
PAGE 65 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
Move-on Powers
331. Each state provides railway staff with the power to remove offenders in varying circumstances. In Queensland, authorised staff may remove offenders if they are acting in a disorderly manner, fare evading or trespassing. These powers are currently available to authorised train guards, ticket inspectors, Protective Services Officers and station staff.
332. Queensland Rail suggests that the move-on powers be widened to provide railway staff with a further power to remove persons loitering on a railway with the intent of doing harm to either persons or property. Further, to complement this power, Queensland Rail advocates that authorised persons be empowered to exclude persons from the railway; a power that is not presently available to police.
333. The recently enacted police powers to direct persons to ‘move on’ have considerable application to the railways, particularly in relation to persons behaving in a ‘disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening’ manner or any person causing another commuter ‘anxiety’. These powers were canvassed by the Queensland Police Service in its submission. (submission 31)
334. It has been suggested to the committee that empowering security guards with ‘legislative authority to remove people from the lower end of the scale and who are disorderly’ is also a feasible option. (transcript, page 8; submission 44) This could leave police to deal with the more serious offenders. As it stands, a ‘proportion of incidents on board trains could easily be responded to by train crew and on board staff if they had the necessary powers and backing of Queensland Rail’. (submission 43) In this regard, the police submission discusses the importance of maintaining ‘high levels of accountability and effectiveness of training, complaint investigation and discipline measures’. (submission 31) The committee agrees.
335. Empowering security guards also has the potential to increase the rate of prosecution and deter anti-social behaviour such as ‘abuse, intimidation and provocative behaviour from offenders’. (submission 31) However, there is the potential for a number of problems to arise with the introduction of move-on powers for authorised railway officers. These issues were raised in relation to the granting of these powers to the police under the Police Powers Bill of 1997. The committee considers that the objections to the granting of move-on powers to police could apply equally to the granting of move-on powers to railway staff, and would hold greater weight. The indiscriminate use of these powers has significant implications for civil liberties.
336. The South Bank Corporation Act 1989 was cited by Queensland Rail as a precedent for the granting of move-on powers to non-police. Under that legislation, security officers have the power to detain and hand offenders to the police. They also have the power to ‘exclude’ offenders from the Southbank site. Compared to the Citytrain network, though, Southbank is a clearly defined area. This makes it easier to implement control measures.
337. The committee recommends that the Government reviews reviewing the powers of authorised persons and private security guards.
PAGE 66 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
Arrest
338. Victorian and Western Australian authorised railway staff (including WestRail’s Special Constables) have the most extensive and broadly encompassing powers of arrest. The Special Constables in Western Australia exercise arrest powers available to police. The Victorian powers have only recently been enacted. In Victoria only three officers have been authorised to ‘convey people arrested (under s.219 TA) to a bail justice or the Magistrates Court’. Queensland railway staff have limited powers of arrest while South Australia railway staff have the power to ‘apprehend’ rather than arrest an offender. In these states, the offender must be brought before the law to be dealt with New South Wales railway staff have no powers of arrest.
339. Citizen’s arrest powers are available to citizens including railway staff in each jurisdiction.
340. Queensland arrest powers are significantly less than those exercised by Victorian authorised rail staff and particularly WestRail’s Special Constables. However, the committee reiterates that it is unable to comment with any certainty on whether or not increasing the powers of authorised persons has any effect on reducing crime. Alternative law enforcement options, including the employment of Queensland rail personnel with powers and responsibilities similar to those exercised by WestRail’s Special Constables, need to be canvassed.
341. A further issue concerns s.34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931. This section provides Queensland Railway employees and other persons working on behalf of Queensland Rail with the power to arrest and detain any person who has committed fare evasion. It is customary in Queensland for specific pieces of legislation to be administered by specific departments. In this case, the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 is almost exclusively administered by the Queensland Police Service. In practice, s.34 of that Act has no application for Queensland Rail and only leads to confusion with the fare evasion offences of theTransport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. (exhibit 11)
342. Where there are conflicting provisions, the general rule is that the more specific section prevails over the general section. In this case it is argued that the fare evasion offences of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and s.34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 are equally specific. As a consequence the more specific statute will prevail (Gifford & Gifford, 1994; 54). Compared to the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 is ‘...intended to achieve the provision of the best possible public transport at reasonable cost to the community and government’. Section 2 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 describes the objectives of the Act.
343. The Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931, is not specifically directed towards promoting public transport. The long title of the act explains that the legislation has been enacted, ‘to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of offences by vagrants and disorderly persons, for the suppression of unlawful gambling and other offences, and for other purposes’. Clearly, the fare evasion offences of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 have greater application and prevail over s.34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931.
PAGE 67 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 6 ~ ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PASSENGER SECURITY
344. The committee concludes that any legislative powers for railway staff should be contained in the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, and s.34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 should be repealed.
RECOMMENDATION 16
That section 34 of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 be repealed.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing RECOMMENDATION 17
That all railway officers who are authorised persons under section 116 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 receive training in alternative dispute resolution, conflict management and negotiation to enable them to enforce reasonable behavioural standards on the railway with minimal police involvement.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 18
That all authorised persons under section 116 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 receive training that is appropriate to the enforcement powers that they may exercise. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
RECOMMENDATION 19
That Queensland Transport review the powers of authorised officers and private security guards on railways in consultation with Queensland Rail. This review should consider extending the prescribed powers of authorised officers and the establishment of railway enforcement officers with responsibilities and powers similar to those exercised by WestRail’s Special Constables.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
PAGE 68 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES
INTRODUCTION
345. This section compares railway offences across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The legislation is presented in table form at Appendix E.
346. The legislation in each jurisdiction covers all relevant behavioural offences. Western Australia is, however, the only state to make loitering on railways a specific offence. Penalties across the states are comparable, although in some instances Queensland penalties are the highest. New South Wales has a consistently low maximum penalty of $200 for all offences. However, Queensland is the only state not to penalise nuisance behaviour with an infringement notice penalty.
GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM
347. In addition to the general offences for graffiti damage and vandalism, it is an offence in each state to graffiti a railway.
348. The legislation in New South Wales (r.27(1) of the Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulation 1994), Victoria (r.301(3)(d) of the Transport (Public Transport Corporation) Regulations 1994) and South Australia (r.35 of the Passenger Transport (Regular Passenger Service; Conduct of Passengers) Regulations 1994) refers to graffiti on any train or railway premises. The Queensland legislation (r.10(4)(b) Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Regulation 1996) simply provides that a person must not put graffiti on the railway. In Western Australia, under By-law 31, a person must not without permission of WestRail affix any placard, bill, advertisement or other matter on any property or premises of Westrail. Infringement notice penalties are comparable for each state.
349. Section 223B(1) of the Victorian Transport Act also makes it an offence to injure, damage or deface property belonging to the Public Transport Corporation, or adjacent property, by marking the property with graffiti. Where an offence is found to have been committed, the offender is liable to a penalty of 25 penalty units (i.e $2500) or six months imprisonment. An offence will not be committed if the person has a lawful excuse for his or her acts. This includes graffiti in areas allocated for lawful graffiti as art. Section 223B(1) only applies where the market cost of repairing the property does not exceed $5000.
350. Graffiti is also covered by specific provisions for damage of railway property. In Queensland it is an offence to wilfully damage a railway. This offence carries a maximum penalty of $3000. To reflect the seriousness of the offence, there is no infringement notice penalty. Similarly, under r.27(1) of the Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulation 1994 it is also an offence to destroy damage or deface any train or SRA property in NSW. Compared to Queensland this offence carries an infringement notice penalty of $200 and a maximum penalty of $200. Western Australia (s.43(2) & (3) Government Railways Act 1904) and South Australia (s.56(3) Passenger Transport Act 1994) also make it an offence to damage and deface property including railway equipment, boards or notices. In Western
PAGE 69 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
Australia the infringement notice penalty is $50 with a maximum penalty of $600. In South Australia, the maximum penalty is $4000.
Possession of Graffiti Implement
351. Section 37C of the Queensland Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 provides that it is an offence to possess a graffiti implement under circumstances that the instrument has been used or is intended to be used to commit a graffiti offence. Under this section, the person claiming to have a reasonable excuse bears the burden of proof.
352. Like Queensland, South Australia does not have specific provisions relating to possession of graffiti implements on railways. Under s.48(4)(a) of the Summary Offences Act, a person who carries a graffiti implement, intending to mark graffiti with it, is guilty of an offence. Section 48(4)(b) makes it an offence for a person to carry a graffiti implement of a prescribed class without lawful excuse in a public place or on private property if the person is trespassing. Section 37C of the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act makes it an offence to possess a graffiti implement where there is a reasonable suspicion that it has been, or is intended to be used, to commit a graffiti offence.
353. Section 223B(3) & (4) of the Victorian Transport Act makes it an offence for a person who is on property of the Public Transport Corporation or adjacent property to have in their possession graffiti implements or graffiti implements of a prescribed class, unless the person has a lawful excuse for having such implements. Section 223B(4) also makes it an offence for a person to have in his or her possession, without lawful excuse, any other sort of graffiti implement with the intention of marking graffiti.
354. Western Australia’s by-law 23 provides that unless a person has a lawful excuse a person must not have in his or her possession a spray can, felt pen, crayon or other article capable of being used to deface property. Similarly, in New South Wales, r.27(2) of the Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulation 1994, provides that it is an offence for any person on any train or SRA premises to be found in possession of any thing intended for use in damaging property. Compared to the other jurisdictions, both Western Australia and New South Wales provide an infringement notice penalty as well as stipulating a maximum penalty where there is a breach of these clauses.
355. Section 10B of the Summary Offences Act (New South Wales) makes it an offence to possess spray paint with the intention that it be used to damage or deface property in New South Wales.
Aiding and Abetting Graffiti
356. The Victorian Transport Act also makes it a specific offence to aid and abet anyone to commit any of the offences created by s.223B(1), (3) or (4). A person who does so is liable to the same penalty as the principal offender (s.223B(5)). As explained in the Second Reading Speech to introduce the Bill: -
In order to target groups or gangs of people who are involved in unlawful graffiti there is specific reference in the Bill to an offence of aiding and abetting. This means that an offender who performs other functions, such as keeping a look out for the
PAGE 70 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
Transit Police, will be equally guilty of unlawfully marking graffiti or possession of graffiti implements with the intent to unlawfully mark graffiti...1”
Penalties for Graffiti
357. In general each state provides comparable offences and penalties for graffiti offences. There are provisions for payment of compensation where a person suffers loss or damage or expense is incurred as a result of a graffiti offence (s.719 Western Australia Criminal Code, s.56(4) Passenger Transport Act 1994 (SA) and s.37C Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 QLD). The offender may also be required to perform community service in the form of removing graffiti (s.10A(2) and s.10B(2) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s.37C Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 (QLD) and Victoria). In Western Australia, however, a graffiti offence is not punishable by imprisonment as it is in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO RAILWAYS
358. The criminal provisions of each state make it an offence to damage railway property in relation to: the intent to injure or endanger personal safety; the intent to damage a railway; intentional acts by omission; and interference with railway equipment.
Intent to Injure or Endanger Personal Safety
359. Offences where a railway is damaged with the intent to injure or endanger personal safety, are comparable.
360. In particular, in Queensland (s.319 Criminal Code) and Western Australia (s.296 Criminal Code) it is a crime to deal with a railway with the intent to injure or endanger the safety of any person travelling on a railway where that person: deals with the railway or any light or signal; or by omission to do an act which is his duty, endangers the safety of any person. In New South Wales, s.211(1) Crimes Act 1900 makes it an offence to do a malicious act or omission with the intention of causing a person’s death, inflicting bodily injury or endangering the safety of any person on the railway or train.
Intent to Damage a Railway
361. The following offences relate to intentional damage of a railway. In this respect, ‘wilful’ and/or ‘malicious’ damage is also indicative of intent.
362. Both Western Australia (s.451 of the Criminal Code) and Queensland (s.467 of the Criminal Code) make it a crime to intentionally obstruct the use of a railway or injure any property upon a railway where a person deals with the railway or deals with any light or signal or by omission to do any act which is his duty, endangers the safety of any person. Queensland provides a maximum penalty of life imprisonment while Western Australia provides a maximum penalty of 20 years.
1 Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Bill 1990 (Vic), Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, Mr Spyker, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 1 November 1990, p 1754
PAGE 71 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
363. In Queensland s.469 of the Criminal Code provides that a crime is committed if any person “wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages” any part of a railway or any work connected with a railway. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
364. Similarly, in Victoria under s.232 of the Crimes Act 1958 it is an offence to ‘unlawfully and maliciously do or cause to be done any matter or thing with intent to obstruct, upset, overthrow, injure or destroy any railway engine, tender, carriage or truck.’ The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
365. In New South Wales s.211(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, a person who ‘maliciously does or omits to do any act with the intention of causing any train to be derailed, destroyed or damaged’ is guilty of an offence and liable to a maximum imprisonment of 14 years.
366. Section 43(1) of the Summary Offences Act (South Australia) provides that it is an offence for a person without lawful authority and knowing that no lawful authority exists: to interfere with any part of a railway, tramway or track designed for the passage of a vehicle; interfere with any signal machinery; place any obstruction or in any other manner obstruct or cause the obstruction of any vehicle using the railway; or do anything else which is likely to damage a railway vehicle. The maximum penalty is a fine of $8000 or 2 years imprisonment.
Intentional Acts by Omission
367. In New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, the legislation refers to intentional acts by omission which cause the obstruction of a train. In New South Wales, s.213 of the Crimes Act provides that it is an offence to ‘intentionally and without lawful excuse do or omit to do an act’. It is also an offence to assist that person. The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment. In Victoria, s.233 of the Crimes Act provides that it is an indictable offence if, by ‘unlawful act or wilful omission or neglect’, any engine or carriage is obstructed or caused to be obstructed. It is also an offence to aid or assist in the commission of the offence. The maximum penalty is 6 months imprisonment. Under s.462 of the Criminal Code of Western Australia, an ‘unlawful act or an intentional omission’ to do any act which is a person’s duty to do, which causes the obstruction of any engine or vehicle in use upon a railway, is a misdemeanour. The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.
368. In New South Wales it is further noted that under s.212 of the Crimes Act, any person who endangers the safety of any person on a railway or being conveyed by a railway, by an ‘unlawful act or omission’, is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is 3 years imprisonment. In comparison, s.329 of the Queensland Criminal Code and s.307 of the Western Australian Criminal Code provide that it is a misdemeanour to endanger the safety of any person travelling by any railway, where a person has done an unlawful act or has omitted to do an act which it is his duty to do. The maximum penalty in both states is 2 years imprisonment (with hard labour in Queensland).
369. Section 41 of the Government Railway Act (Western Australia) also makes it an offence to encroach on a railway, including to damage or injure the railway. The maximum penalty is $200 for every day each offence is committed or continues.
PAGE 72 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
Interference with Railway Equipment
370. Each jurisdiction also makes it an offence to interfere with railway equipment including signals, controls, communications systems and brakes. Penalties vary from state to state according to the severity of the offence. These provisions encompass any obstructions to the proper operation of the railway service. Additional provisions provide that it is an offence to throw anything on to a railway.
Dangerous Goods
371. It is an offence, to possess or have in a person’s luggage any dangerous goods whilst travelling on a Queensland railway. Similarly in Victoria, it is an offence to take or attempt to take onto any rail vehicle or premises, explosives, inflammable liquid or anything which may project beyond the rail vehicle or anything which a corporation employee has told the person is dangerous to any person or railway property.
PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES
Litter
372. The legislation in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia provides that it is an offence to litter a train or railway premises. Rubbish must not be deposited on a railway except in a container provided for that purpose. The infringement notice penalties are comparable, however the maximum fine varies from $750 in Queensland to $200 in New South Wales.
Nuisance Behaviour
373. In general, s.141 of the Queensland Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act makes it an offence to ‘create a disturbance or a nuisance while on a railway, train or other passenger vehicle operated by a railway manager’. This compares with the legislation in New South Wales (r.10 Transport Administration (Railway Offences) Regulations 1994) where it is an offence to ‘wilfully interfere with the comfort or safety of other persons’. Enforcement is by complaint and summons.
374. Both Victoria and South Australia provide a scale of on-the-spot and maximum penalties relevant to the severity or degree of nuisance. Specifically, the regulations (r.301(1)(b)of the PTCR and r.10(1) of the South Australian regulations) provide that ‘a person must not commit any nuisance or act in a way that is likely to interfere with the comfort of any other person’. Regulation 10(1) of the South Australian regulations further provides that a person must not disturb or annoy another person. It is an offence to convey goods which may be a source of annoyance or discomfort (Victoria) or obstruction or annoyance (South Australia).
375. The most obvious difference in the legislation is that Queensland is the only state not to make nuisance offences punishable with an infringement notice penalty. In particular, states such as Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia provide specific infringement notice penalties
PAGE 73 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
for minor offences including spitting, offensive language and behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner.
General Nuisance Provisions
376. Smoking in a train and other areas where signs prohibit smoking is an offence in each jurisdiction. Victoria also makes it an offence to smoke any other substance on a train or railway premises. The consumption of food and drink on a train is specifically prohibited in Queensland (where signs indicate), South Australia (as directed by railway staff) and Western Australia. Various other provisions in each jurisdiction make it an offence to put feet on seats, and engage in any unauthorised commercial activities. Other nuisance behaviour such as occupying more than one seat and playing or operating a musical instrument or sound equipment, unless earphones are attached, are specifically covered in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia and in the more encompassing general nuisance provisions of New South Wales and Western Australia. Each state provides comparable infringement notice penalties for these offences. Although, Queensland provides the highest maximum penalty of $1500.
377. Compared to the other states, loitering on a railway is a specific offence in Western Australia.
Injurious Behaviour - Proper Entrance and Exit
378. Legislation in each jurisdiction makes it an offence to enter or exit a train or railway premises other than via a designated entrance or exit. It is also an offence to hold open or attempt to enter or exit a train while that train is in motion and/or interfere with the doors of a train while it is in motion. The penalties for breach of these provisions are comparable although it is noted that in Queensland the maximum court imposed fines ($1500) far exceeds those of the other jurisdictions.
Travel Not Allowed on Certain Parts of Train
379. It is also an offence to travel on certain parts of the train not designed for passengers. These provisions are designed to be used to deal with dangerous behaviour such as train surfing. The maximum penalties for each state vary while the infringement notice penalties are comparable.
Alcohol
380. In all jurisdictions, it is an offence to consume alcohol on a railway at a place not set aside for drinking it, unless the liquor is supplied by the railway. Victoria provides the highest penalties for this offence.
Animals
381. Each jurisdiction makes it an offence to take an animal onto the railway except where the person is aurally or visually deficient and requires a guide dog. The maximum penalty in Queensland is $1500. Animals transported in accordance with the conditions imposed by the relevant railway are excluded from these provisions.
PAGE 74 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
CONCLUSION
382. The behavioural offences and penalties for breeches on railways in all Australian jurisdictions are comparable. The only noteworthy difference in penalties arises when comparing penalties for ‘disturbance’ offences. For minor offences such as spitting and offensive language, infringement notice penalties are available in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Queensland is the only state not to provide an infringement notice penalty for these offences.
383. There are advantages and disadvantages in issuing infringement notice penalties:
· Issuing infringement notice penalties is not mandatory. There is a discretion to give warnings, although, warnings may not always be given owing to the comparative ease of issuing infringement notice penalties. Penalties are also imposed without independent scrutiny of the facts by a court. · The majority of persons receiving infringement notices opt to pay the fine. As a result no further prosecutorial action nor use of court resources is required. However, enforcement of these fines is difficult (Fox, 1995; 7). · The penalty for the offence remains a deterrent although the deterrent effect may be reduced if matters are dealt with administratively rather than judicially. The generation of revenue may also lead to enforcement for the wrong reason.
384. On balance, it may be advantageous for infringement notice penalties to be introduced in Queensland for minor summary offences such as spitting and offensive language. This would save and avoid the prohibitive prosecution and court costs involved in dealing with cases summarily.
385. The fact that there is no infringement notice penalty suggests that the offence of creating a disturbance is serious. This introduces sentencing and prosecutorial discretions. Essentially, a more severe penalty tends to be subverted by adjustments in the enforcement practices of those who apply the law. (p.140 Criminal Justice on the Spot - Infringement Penalties in Victoria) That is, these matters may never reach the courts and, if they do, are dealt with in a minor way. Spitting and offensive language offences currently result in warnings or police action for criminal assault if police are able to investigate. The introduction of the option of issuing a lesser infringement notice penalty for these offences would ensure that penalties for minor summary offences on Queensland railways are consistent. It would also enable authorised railway staff to issue infringement notice penalties rather than calling in the police. Authorities would still retain the option of proceeding with matters summarily.
386. The committee notes in particular the approach adopted in Victoria where a scale of penalties may be imposed depending on the severity of the offence.
387. To further reduce the incidence of these offences, these measures need to be supplemented by other actions such as publicity, education and training.
PAGE 75 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 7 ~ RAILWAY OFFENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
RECOMMENDATION 20
That Queensland Transport consider amending section 141 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to introduce infringement notice penalties for minor offences such as spitting, offensive language and behaving in an offensive manner. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY · Minister for Transport and Main Roads
PAGE 76 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION PASSENGER SECURITY
PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION
Personal Safety on Citytrain
388. There is no single, comprehensive record of crimes and security incidents on the Citytrain network. The Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail maintain separate databases to record crimes and security incidents. These databases record incidents using different criteria and are incompatible. The lack of data obscures the true extent of crimes on the network. The committee used crime records from the Queensland Police Service which contained the words ‘railway’ or ‘train’ in lieu of more accurate data. The committee was able to obtain data for the three and a half year period from 1 July 1994 to 31 December 1997 on this basis. The committee has used this data to identify crimes against passengers involving the Citytrain network. Problems with the standard of data need to be resolved. The committee suggests that Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service examine the feasibility of developing a common database for railway crimes.
389. During the period examined, there were: 548 assaults against passengers on the Citytrain network; 198 assaults against Queensland Railway employees or police; and 2,738 motor vehicles stolen from or near Citytrain stations. The assaults against passengers included: four attempted murders; 256 serious assaults; 189 other non-sexual assaults; 90 sexual assaults; and 39 other assaults that were secondary to other offences. Compared to patronage the risk of passenger assaults on the network is extremely low and declining. During the three and a half year period examined, in excess of 137.8 million passenger journeys were travelled on the Citytrain network. The average risk over the period examined was 0.39 assaults per 100,000 passenger journeys. For regular commuters who take 480 trips per year, this equates to an average likelihood of being assaulted once every 528 years. 273 robberies were committed against passengers on the Citytrain network during the period examined.
390. Of the assaults against Citytrain passengers, 54 percent were against persons aged between 12 and 18 years at the time of the offence, and 1.6 percent were against persons aged 60 years or older. Passengers most often assaulted on the Citytrain network were aged 16 years. 58 percent of passengers assaulted on the Citytrain network were male. 65 percent of known assault offenders were also aged between 12 and 18 years, and 82 percent were male. The data suggests that assaults against, and by, high school aged children are a large proportion of all assaults involving the railway that were reported to police.
391. Crimes involving railways represent a small proportion of reported crime for the state as a whole. During the period examined, serious assaults, sexual assaults and motor vehicle thefts involving the railway declined markedly while the incidence of these crimes for the rest of the state increased. Thefts of motor vehicles parked in railway station car parks or streets adjacent to railway stations reduced by 52.4 percent during the period.
392. The committee is encouraged by the apparent reductions in crimes on the Citytrain network that are suggested by the crimes data over the short period examined. However, the lack of comprehensive data on passenger travel patterns and car park usage has prevented the committee from confirming that the reduction in crimes has been the result of security initiatives that are now in place.
PAGE 77 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION PASSENGER SECURITY
393. Despite evidence that the actual risk of criminal victimisation on the railway is low, public perceptions of crime represent an important factor in people’s decisions not to travel by public transport, especially at night. Factors likely to influence these perceptions include: the cleanliness of stations and trains; the presence of graffiti; exposure to rowdy or offensive groups; and the portrayal of crimes involving the railway in the media. The public’s recognition of media reports of crime may be partly due to the absence of credible authoritative public information on the level of actual crime. The committee urges that statistics on crimes and the risks to passengers on the railway be published by Queensland Rail with guidelines for passengers on enhancing personal safety and security on the railway.
394. The costs of crimes on the Citytrain network are likely to be considerable. Based on estimated costs of crime prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, for crimes reported to police, the annual costs of crimes involving the network is likely to be in the order of $8.2 million comprising: $0.78 million for assaults; $4 million for motor vehicle thefts; $1.4 million for graffiti and vandalism; and $2 million for lost fares revenue due to security concerns.
395. It is imperative that the actual and perceived risks to passengers be addressed to improve the mobility of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups of users, and to encourage patronage of the network as an alternative to travel by private motor vehicle. This is crucial to the future livability of South East Queensland.
Preventing Crime
396. A range of situational and social approaches can be used to prevent crime. Crime prevention approaches on railways have largely been situational. Studies of crime prevention approaches adopted on other railways, public transport systems and public spaces suggest that a combination of approaches is needed including analysis of crimes data, improvements to stations and trains to reduce the potential for crime, active surveillance and highly-visible, objective-driven policing.
397. The committee noted the widespread use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for security surveillance on railways. From the studies of CCTV that have been undertaken, the value of CCTV as a crime prevention tool and criminal deterrent remains unproven. Queensland Rail is investing $10.5 million on CCTV for the Citytrain network as part of its Trainsafe package to enhance safety and security.
Security and Policing on Citytrain
398. Queensland Rail is responsible for security management on the Citytrain network, while the Queensland Police Service is principally responsible for policing. The relationship between Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service has not always been ideal.
399. Queensland Rail has implemented major security initiatives on the railway without consulting the police or engaging external expert security advice. Its Trainsafe package of security initiatives commits the Government to investing more than 60 percent of the package’s total capital works budget on CCTV. It was not clear to the committee that Queensland Rail considered the available research in its decision to invest in the technology. The Queensland Police Service is concerned at the emphasis on CCTV over other crime prevention initiatives. Queensland Rail argues that the technology has had an impact on crimes on the network.
PAGE 78 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION PASSENGER SECURITY
400. Other security management and policing issues for Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service are: the basis for its allocation of priority to stations for security upgrades; the need to implement CPTED security audits of stations; difficulties with the coordination of staff on the railways in policing/security roles; and the inability of the Police Rail Squad to provide a visible police presence on the network. The committee urges that police numbers in the squad be reviewed.
Powers of Authorised Officers
401. The committee compared the powers of authorised officers under railway legislation in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The committee concludes that additional powers for authorised railway officers in Queensland ought to be considered. In this respect, the Committee notes the model adopted by WestRail. Consideration should also be given to providing scope for the existing powers to be conferred to private security guards while on the railway provided that adequate safe guards and accountabilities are in place. The committee concludes that arrest powers on railways currently available under the Vagrants, Gaming and other Offences Act 1931 should be repealed as these powers are inconsistent with the specific transport legislation relating to railways.
402. The committee also advocates that authorised railway officers should be properly trained to enforce railway offences that is appropriate to their level of authority. They should also receive training in alternative dispute resolution, conflict management and negotiation. This training will assist these officers to enforce railway offences provisions with minimal police involvement.
Railway Offences
403. The committee also compared the behavioural offences relating to persons travelling on railways in all Australian jurisdictions. In general, the offences that are established or covered by the railways legislation in each jurisdiction are similar, though there are differences in the how these offences are enforced. In Queensland there is a greater emphasis on enforcement by complaint and summons rather than on-the-spot penalties for disturbance offences. The committee considers that it may be advantageous to amend the Queensland legislation, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act and Regulations to provide authorised officers with the option to impose on-the-spot penalties for nuisance behaviour such as spitting, offensive language and behaving in an offensive manner.
PAGE 79 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO PART 8 ~ CONCLUSION PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 80 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO REFERENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
REFERENCES
ACT Community Safety Committee, 1994 Civic by Night ACT Attorney General’s Department, Canberra.
ACT 1995 ACT Community Safety Committee, 1995 Manuka by Night, ACT Attorney General’s Department, Canberra.
ACT 1995, Role of Urban Design in Crime Prevention and Community Safety, ACT Planning Authority and ACT Attorney General’s Department, Canberra.
AIS 1993, The Australian Violence Prevention Award 1992, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1993.
Balog, J N, Schwarz. A N and Doyle, B C 1995, Transit System Security Program Planning Guide, (Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC).
Benninghoff, R 1993, ‘Interior Impact Protection for Bus and Rail’, Mass Transit, Sept./Oct. 1993.
Bottoms, Anthony E 1990, ‘Crime Prevention : facing the 1990s’, Policing and Society 1:3-22.
Brown, Melanie, 1996, ‘The Portrayal of Violence in the Media: Impacts & Implications for Policy’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No.55, Australian Institute of Criminology, June 1996.
Carr K. and G. Spring 1993, ‘Public Transport: A Community Right and a Communal Responsibility’, Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 1, Criminal Justice Press, New York.
Chappell, D. 1995, ’How Violent is Australian Society?’ Australian Violence: contemporary Perspectives II; National conference on Violence (2nd;1993) Australian Institute of Criminology (Canberra, A.C.T.).
City of Mesa 1997, ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’, http://gate1.ci.mesa.az.us/police/cpted.htm (internet).
Clarke, Ronald V; Cody, Ronald P. & Natarajan, Mangai 1994, ‘Subway Slugs: Tracking Displacement on the London Underground’, Brit. Journal of Criminology, Vol.34 No.2 Spring 1994, pp122-138.
Collins, M 1993, ‘Strathclyde PTE focuses on safety of women passengers’, Modern Railways, Vol.50 No.534, March 1993, p141.
Cook, T 1997, ‘Coroner advocates adoption of two red lights after fatal WA crash’, Network Magazine, February 1997.
Cornish, B.&Clarke,V.C. 1986, ‘Situational prevention, displacement of crime and rational choice theory’ in Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory into Practice, eds K. Heal & G. Laycock, Home Office Research and Planning Unit, London.
PAGE 81 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO REFERENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
Corns, Chris and Simpson, Brian 1988, ‘Policing Victorian Public Transport: Extending the Police Domain’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol.23 No.4.
Criminal Justice Commission 1997, ‘The Cost of First Response Policing’, Criminal Justice Research Paper Series, Volume 4, Number 2, December 1997.
Criminal Justice Commission 1994, ‘Fear of Crime’, Criminal Justice Research Paper Series, Vol. 1, No.2.
Easteal, P W and Wilson, P R 1991,‘Preventing Crime on Transportation’ (Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra).
Economic Research Centre 1987, Report of the seventy-fifth round table on transport economics: Delinquency and Vandalism in Public Transport, European Conference of Ministers of Transport , Paris 1987.
Fairfield L.G.A. 1991, Fear of Crime, Perceptions of the Local Crime Problem, and Victimisation in a local community within Fairfield L.G.A., The Council of the City of Fairfield NSW 1991.
Fox, R G 1995, Criminal Justice on the Spot - Infringement penalties in Victoria, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Gaylord, M S and Galliher, J F 1991, ‘Riding the Underground Dragon: Crime Control and Public Order on Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway’, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 31, No. 1., Winter, pp15-26.
Geason, Susan & Wilson, Paul R. 1989, ‘Designing out crime: Crime prevention through environmental design’, Crime Prevention Series, Australian Institute of Criminology, No.71.
Gifford, D J and Gifford, K H 1994, How to understand an act of parliament, Eighth Edition, The Law Book Company.
Glover, J 1992, ‘In Search of Objectives’, Modern Railways, September 1992.
Hickman, Phill 1991, ‘Transit Crime and Policing’, Australian Police, July-Sept., pp98-102.
Hodge, D C and Orrell, J D 1995, ‘Measuring Levels of Service and Performance’, (Washington State Department of Transportation: Washington).
Hope, R 1992, ‘Rational Spending on Safety Brings Results’, Railway Gazette International, May 1992.
International Metropolitan Railways Committee Sub-Committee, 1986 ‘Passenger safety in metropolitan railways’, UITP Revue, Vol.35, 1/1986, pp14-20.
Jansson, Robyn 1990, ‘Rail Riders’, Police Life, March, p11.
Kiersh, E 1980, ‘Protecting the Commuter’, Police magazine, Vol. 3, No. 5, September, pp36-43.
Local Government Association of Queensland, Resource Manual: bikes, bands and strategic plans, pp43-63.
PAGE 82 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO REFERENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
McKay, Tom 1996, ‘Security Architecture: The Right Design for Reducing Crime’, Peel Regional Police Research, Canada, http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000116.html & http://www.peelpolice.gov/research.html (internet).
Melia, M K 1996, ‘How to Improve Parking-Lot Safety’, Traffic Safety, March./April 1996.
Mukherjee, Satyanshu, ‘Measuring Crime’ in Crime and Justice: An Australian Textbook in Criminology, Chapter 4, LBC Information Services, Sydney, 1996, pp61-91.
National Crime Prevention Council, ‘CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)’, http://www.ncpc.org/3cpted.htm (internet).
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 1997 Surveillance, Issue Paper 12, Sydney, May 1997.
Parliament of Victoria Crime Prevention Committee 1993, Developing a Safer Public Transport System: Second and Final Report upon the Inquiry into Personal Safety on the Public Transport System, L.V. North, Government Printer, Melbourne.
Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd & Greg Tucker and Associates Pty Ltd, ‘Women’s Transport Needs’ (unpublished).
The Planning Center, 1997, ‘Safe Community Planning & Design: An Introduction to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (SPTED), http://www.planningcenter.com/cvcpted.htm (internet).
Polk, Warren, ‘Crimes against the Person’ in Crime and Justice: An Australian Textbook in Criminology, LBC Information Services, Sydney, 1996, pp183-204.
Privacy Committee of NSW 1995, Invisible Eyes: Report on Video Surveillance in the Workplace Report No. 67, NSW Government.
‘Public Transport Safety in Victoria’, in The Promise of Crime Prevention: Leading Crime Prevention Programs, eds Peter Grabosky & Marianne James, Chapter 12, Australian Institute of Criminology 1995, pp24-25.
Queensland Criminal Justice Commission, 1998, Beenleigh Calls for Service Project: Evaluation Report, Executive Summary.
‘Reducing Crime on Public Transport in The Netherlands’, in The Promise of Crime Prevention: Leading Crime Prevention Programs, eds Peter Grabosky & Marianne James, Chapter 13, Australian Institute of Criminology 1995, pp 26-27.
Richards, L G,&Hoel, L A 1980, ‘Planning Procedures for Improving Transit Station Security’, US Department of Transportation: Washington.
Smith, Mary S. 1996, ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities’, NIJ Research in Brief, April 1996, http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/cptedpkg.txt (internet).
Smith, R A 1995, ‘Crashworthiness Moves from Art to Science’, Railway Gazette International, April 1995.
Sullivan, J P 1996, ‘Transit Crime and Order maintenance: A North American Perspective’ Transit Policing, March 1996, pp37-41.
PAGE 83 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO REFERENCES PASSENGER SECURITY
Sutton, Adam & Hazelhurst, Kayleen M., ‘Crime Prevention’, in Crime and Justice: An Australian Textbook in Criminology, Chapter 17, LBC Information Services, Sydney, 1996, pp421-461.
UITP 1986, ‘Passenger Safety in Metropolitan Railways’, UITP Review, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Urjadko, Viktor, ‘Community Based Initiatives in Crime Prevention’ in Julia Vernon & Sandra McKillop eds, Preventing Juvenile Crime, Conference Proceedings No.9, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1991, pp169-175.
White, Rob and Suton, Adam 1995, ‘Crime prevention, urban space and social exclusion’, Australia New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol.31, No.1, Mar 1995 pp82-99.
PAGE 84 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO EXHIBITS PASSENGER SECURITY
EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Description
1. Information from Queensland Rail. Including: (a) Queensland Rail Safety Standards Committee Charter (b) Queensland Rail Safety Council Charter (c) Queensland Rail Corporate Safety Plan 1995/1996 (d) Queensland Rail Citytrain Group Safety Management Plan April 1996 (e) Queensland Rail Corporate Safety Audit Framework (f) Queensland Rail Safety Council Submission - Safety Training (g) Queensland Rail Citytrain Monthly Report March 1996 (extracts) (h) Queensland Rail By-law No. 1193 Book of Rules for the Guidance of Employees in the service of the Commissioner for Railways (1986) (i) Queensland Rail Rollingstock Book December 1991 (j) Queensland Rail Safety Management System Safety Policies 01 to 20 (uncontrolled draft) 1997 (k) Queensland Rail SPAD Reduction Strategy (version 2) 1997 (l) Queensland Rail Safety Management System - Standard STD/0011/WHS Safety Training and Accreditation (draft) 1997 (m) Queensland Rail - Scope of Works for ‘Trainsafe’ - a commitment to increased security for staff and patrons using QR’s facilities and services - capital works item 3413 Citytrain Group 1996 (n) Queensland Rail Trainsafe project report February 1997 (March 1997) (o) Queensland Rail briefing notes - Inspection by the Committee, 24 March 1997, Mayne Depot (p) Queensland Rail Employee Relations Policy (draft) - Recruitment and Selection for Drivers of Rail Operated Vehicles (q) Queensland Rail - overhead transparencies used during opening statement by Mr Glen Dawe, Group General Manager, Citytrain - Brisbane public hearing 27 March 1997 (r) Queensland Rail Citytrain Security Project December 1994 (s) Queensland Rail Citytrain Security Project - Report on Study Trip in November 1994 to: Public Transport Authority (Melbourne);
PAGE 85 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO EXHIBITS PASSENGER SECURITY
TransAdelaide (Adelaide); and, Westrail (Perth) Projects and Contracts Group, December 1994. (t) Queensland Rail Citytrain School Education Program Information Booklet (u) ‘Changing Role of Citytrain Traincrews - Study of Australian Suburban Rail Networks’, Joint Citytrain/Working Party Report, March 1995 (v) Queensland Rail, ‘The Design, Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Trainsafe Station CCTV Security Systems - Phase 3 Brisbane Citytrain Network’ Volume 1 of 2, Contract GMT.P342. Queensland Rail, ‘Report of Assessment Group - Citytrain Trial of Personal Duress Buttons’, Assessment Group, 10 December 1997
2. Statistics provided by Queensland Rail. Including: (a) Queensland Rail Safety Incident Data Warehouse, 4 July 1997 (disc) (b) Livestock collisions (Citytrain) - 1.7.91-30.6.97 (c) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by date 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (d) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by location type 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (e) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by time of day 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (f) Passenger falls (Citytrain) between trains and platforms 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (g) Fatalities (all groups) 1.6.93 - 31.8.97 (h) Trespasser injuries (Citytrain) 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (i) Passenger falls (Citytrain) by treatment type 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (j) Needlestick injuries (Citytrain) 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (k) Wheelchair injuries (Citytrain) 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (l) Escalator injuries (Citytrain) 1.1.95 - 30.6.97 (m) Passenger train door injuries (Citytrain) 1.1.95 to 30.6.97 (n) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by age 1.1.95 to 30.6.97 (o) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by sex 1.1.95 to 30.6.97 (p) Passenger injuries (Citytrain) by injury outcome 1.1.95 -30.6.97 (q) AWS faults (Brisbane Suburban Area) by category 1.7.96 - 30.6.97 and reports (r) Level crossing incidents (Citytrain) 1.7.91 - 30.6.97
3. Correspondence, 7 March 1996. Corrs Chambers Westgarth solicitors to Queensland Rail re: Workplace Health & Safety Legal Compliance Program.
PAGE 86 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO EXHIBITS PASSENGER SECURITY
4. Information provided by the Queensland Police Service. Including: (a) Police Rail Squad, ‘Comparison of Reported Crime for 1995 and 1996’, 27 March 1997 (b) Queensland Police Service/Queensland Rail, ‘Memorandum of Understanding Between Queensland Rail and Queensland Police Service’ 15 January 1996 (c) Queensland Police Service/Queensland Rail, Draft Strategic Security Plan for the Citytrain Network
5. Statistics provided by the Queensland Police Service. Including: (a) Various CRISP data on crimes involving ‘railway’ or ‘train’ 1.7.94- 31.12.97 plus database (b) Various CRISP data on crimes for all locations, Queensland, 1.7.94- 31.12.97
6. Correspondence, 12 January 1998, TransAdelaide, Stephen Moir re: staff numbers.
7. Correspondence, 25 February 1998, Graeme Goodfellow, Passenger Transport Board, Adelaide re: powers of authorised persons.
8. Correspondence, 2 March 1998, Steven (Bob) Szegiti, Manager Police Liaison, Security and Investigation, Public Transport Corporation re: crime statistics.
9. Correspondence, 19 January 1998, Workforce Planning, NSW Police Service re: transit police.
10. Queensland Rail Memorandum, 9 February 1998 re: Review of Proposed Legislative Changes.
11. Queensland Rail Correspondence, 9 March 1998, Keith Stafford re: statutory interpretation.
12. Queensland Rail Correspondence, 21 January 1998, Glen Dawe re: staff numbers.
13. Queensland Rail Correspondence, 13 March 1998, Glen Dawe re: authorised officers.
14. Queensland Rail Correspondence, Mr Glen Dawe.
15. Queensland Rail Correspondence, 19 March 1998, Peter Gockel re: CCTV cameras on the Citytrain network.
PAGE 87 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO EXHIBITS PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 88 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX A PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX A — CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee Inquiry into Passenger Safety and Security on the Brisbane Citytrain Network
The Travelsafe Committee is an all-party Committee appointed by the Parliament to inquire into and report on all aspects of road safety and public transport in Queensland. In particular, the Committee shall monitor, investigate and report on:
(a) issues affecting road safety including the causes of road crashes and measures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries and economic costs to the community;
(b) the safety of passenger transport services, and measures aimed at reducing the incidence of related deaths and injuries; and
(c) measures for the enhancement of public transport in Queensland and reducing dependence on private motor vehicles as the predominant mode of transport.
The Committee is investigating the adequacy of current arrangements for the safety and security of passengers accessing and travelling on trains throughout the Brisbane Citytrain Network. This network covers the following lines: Brisbane to Beenleigh/Gold Coast, Caboolture/Gympie, Cleveland, Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Ipswich/Rosewood, Pinkenba and Pinkenba shuttle service.
Submissions made will be treated as public documents unless the Committee determines that confidentiality is required. Requests for confidentiality should be clearly marked. Persons making submissions to the Committee may be called upon to give evidence to the Committee.
Submissions should be forwarded by Friday 26 July 1996 to:
The Research Director Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee Parliament House Cnr George and Alice Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000
For further information or submission guidelines, contact the Research Director: Telephone (07) 3406 7669 or Facsimile (07) 3406 7262.
John Goss MLA, Chairperson 5 June 1996
PAGE 89 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX A PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 90 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX B PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX B — LIST OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
1. Mr R Bennett 13. Mr J Mathews NUDGEE QLD 4014 Chief Executive Officer Pine Rivers Shire Council 2. Mr and Mrs P Simon STRATHPINE QLD 4500 SHERWOOD QLD 4075 14. Mr D Meyer 3. Mr/s A H Bailey Manager Transport Planning SUNNYBANK HILLS QLD 4109 Caboolture Shire Council CABOOLTURE QLD 4510 4. Mrs L Arnold CHELMER QLD 4068 15. Mrs M Shaw VICTORIA POINT QLD 4165 5. Mrs M Lewis-Driver Coordinator 16. Ms A Slipper Queensland Injury Surveillance and Director Prevention Project Nambour Community Preschool and SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101 Kindergarten Association Inc. NAMBOUR QLD 4560 6. Mr C Ashton MUNRUBEN WOODS QLD 4125 17. Mrs S Woodbridge Acting Executive Director 7. Mr I Holmes Council on the Ageing Queensland Inc. DEAGON QLD 4017 NUNDAH QLD 4012
8. Ms E Grigg 18. ANONYMOUS CORINDA QLD 4075 19. Ms J Smith 9. Mr G Wilson Secretariat Managing Director Safety Institute of Australia Guardian Angel Queensland Division Research and Development Pty Ltd SPRING HILL QLD 4004 BULIMBA QLD 4171 20. Ms P Godsell 10. Ms K Cook Domestic Violence Worker TARINGA QLD 4068 Women’s Legal Service ANNERLEY QLD 4103 11. Mr R Draper Associate 21. Mrs P Avery Security Risk Management Australia Hon State Secretary BROWNS PLAINS QLD 4118 National Council of Women of Queensland (Inc) 12. Mr V O’Rourke BRISBANE QLD 4000 Chief Executive Queensland Rail 22. Mr H Wright BRISBANE QLD 4001 Chief Executive Officer Redland Shire Council CLEVELAND QLD 4163
PAGE 91 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX B PASSENGER SECURITY
23. Ms M Young 34. Mr M Henman Chief Executive Officer CORINDA QLD 4075 Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of Queensland Inc. 35. Mr L Ardill MLA WEST END QLD 4101 Member for Archerfield COOPERS PLAINS QLD 4108 24. Mr G Gardiner Director 36. Ms K Godfrey TRICOM Australia Pty Ltd BOOVAL QLD 4304 BRADMAN STREET D.C. QLD 4110 37. Ms S Little 25. Mr D Deans RAYMONDS HILL QLD 4305 Chief Executive National Seniors Association 38. Dr D Lange BRISBANE QLD 4001 Chief Health Officer Health Advancement Branch 26. Mr P Blake Queensland Health Executive Director BRISBANE QLD 4001 Land Transport Safety Queensland Transport 39. Mr M Simpson FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 Area Coordinator NHW NUSNHSW2 Neighbourhood 27. Mr L Crofton Watch Branch Secretary WAVELL HEIGHTS QLD 4012 Public Transport Union (Queensland Branch) 40. Rev A Male BRISBANE QLD 4000 Director-General Department of Families, Youth and 28. Mr N Roberts MLA Community Care Member for Nudgee BRISBANE QLD 4001 BANYO QLD 4014 41. Mr D Cheetham 29. Mrs J Rutch HOLLAND PARK QLD 4121 YANDINA QLD 4561 42. Ipswich Women’s Health Clinic and 30. Mr B Horne Sexual Assault Service General Manager Disability Programs IPSWICH QLD 4305 Queensland Spastic Welfare League FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 43. Mr C English Branch Chairman 31. Mr J P O’Sullivan No. 5 State Councillor Commissioner Australian Federated Union of Queensland Police Service Locomotive Enginemen (Queensland) BRISBANE QLD 4001 MAYNE QLD 4006
32. Mr/s H MacDonald 44. CONFIDENTIAL ST LUCIA QLD 4067
33. Mr K Carmody Industrial Officer Rail Services Union SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101
PAGE 92 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX C PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX C — WITNESSES AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
BRISBANE ¾ 27 MARCH 1997
Senior Sergeant Ian Limbach Officer in Charge - Railway Squad Queensland Police Service
Superintendent Bob Watson Specialist Services Branch Queensland Police Service (Brisbane)
Inspector Bob Harding Specialist Services Branch - Queensland Police Service Railway Squad
Senior Constable Helena Intelligence Officer - Railway Queensland Police Service Adriannsen Squad
Mr Kelvin Steer Honorary Member and Public Transport Union Representative
Mr Colin English Train driver and State Councillor Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen
Ms Victoria Wight Industrial Officer Railway Services Union
Mr Roderick Draper Managing Director Amtac Professional Services
Mr Robert Jones Access Consultant and Queensland Disability Chairperson Advisory Council
Mr Greg Ford Principal Advisor - Railway Safety Queensland Transport Accreditation Unit
Mr Bruce Couch Acting Manager - Rail Safety Queensland Transport Accreditation Unit
Ms Helen Stehbens Director - Rail and Port Authority Queensland Transport Policy
Mr Stephen Hart Senior Policy Adviser - Rail and Queensland Transport Port Authority Policy
Mr Norm Boniface Acting Principal Adviser - Queensland Transport Transport Planning (SEQ) Branch
Mr Martin Thomsett Manager - Scheduled Services - Queensland Transport Public Transport Division
Mr Vince O’Rourke Chief Executive Queensland Rail
PAGE 93 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX C PASSENGER SECURITY
BRISBANE ¾ 27 MARCH 1997 CONTINUED
Mr Kevin Band General Manager (Safety) Queensland Rail
Mr Glen Dawe Group General Manager (Citytrain) Queensland Rail
Mr Rob McAlpine Manager - Planning and Business Queensland Rail Development (Citytrain)
Mr Keith Stafford Manager - Protective Services Queensland Rail (Citytrain)
BRISBANE ¾ 28 MAY 1997
Mr Vince O’Rourke Chief Executive Queensland Rail
Mr Kevin Band General Manager (Safety) Queensland Rail
Mr Glen Dawe Group General Manager (Citytrain) Queensland Rail
Mr Rob McAlpine Manager - Planning and Business Queensland Rail Development (Citytrain)
Mr Keith Stafford Manager - Protective Services Queensland Rail (Citytrain)
PAGE 94 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX D — POWERS OF RAILWAY STAFF
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT DEFINITIONS “authorised person”, for a railway, Clause 3A of the Regulations r.104 “authorised person” means - s.57 PTA In this section, “prescribed s.53(11) GRA The Commission may, means - (a ) a police officer; or (b) a (1) Authorise person means (except (a) a person employed or authorised officer” means a person who is in writing, appoint persons or classes of person who holds an appointment as an in Part 4); by the Corporation who has duties in authorised by the Board to exercise persons to be authorised persons for the authorised person for the railway under (a) an officer or employee of the SRA, relation to the issue, inspection or powers under this section. purposes of subsection (2), (3), (5) or the Transport Operations (Passenger or collection of tickets or the operation of (7) or for the purposes of 2 or more of Transport) Act 1994, Section 116. (b) a person who, or a person of a class a rail or road vehicle; r.3 PT(RSP;CP)R those subsections, but a person who is s.116 TO(PT)A (1) Every police that, is authorised in writing by the (b) a person employed by the “authorised person” means - authorised to give infringement notices officer is an authorised person for SRA for the purposes of this Corporation who has duties in relation (a) an employee of an operator; or under subsection (2) is not eligible to every railway Regulation, or to the inspection and supervision of rail (b) the driver of a passenger vehicle be an authorised person for the (2) The Chief Executive may appoint (c) a police officer. or road vehicles; (whether or not an employee of the purposes of any of the other an employee of a railway manager or (c) a member of the police force of operator); or subsections. operator to be an authorised person for (2) In Part 4, “authorised person” Victoria (c) an authorised officer under s.53 of the railway means: (d) any other person appointed or the Act; or (3) The chief executive may appoint a (a) an officer or employee of Rail authorised by the Corporation for any (d) a member of the police force; or person to be an authorised person for Access Corporation, or of the purposes of Part VII of the Act; (e) a person who is authorised by the the railway only if - (b) a person who, or a person of a class Board to exercise the powers of an (a) the chief executive considers the that, is authorised in writing by Rail ‘Corporation” means Public Transport authorised person under these person has the necessary expertise or Access Corporation for the purposes of Corporation; regulations experience to be an authorised person; this Regulation, or or (c) a police officer. “Corporation’s premises” means any (b) the person has satisfactorily land building, premises or structure finished training approved by the chief NB: Part 4 offences relate to owned, occupied or leased by the executive. crossing railway lines. Corporation; (4) the chief executive may limit the powers of an authorised person (other (3) In addition, a reference to an than a police officer) by written notice authorised person: given to the person. (a) in clauses 29(2)(a) and 30(4)(a) (5) An authorised person may only includes a reference to a person exercise a power under this Act for the referred to in subclause (1), and railway for which the person was in clauses 14(2), 26(2), 27(3) and appointed. 41(1), includes a reference to a person referred to in subclause (2). POWER TO Police powers s.98 TAA In this section an authorised s.218 TA (1) “authorised officer” s.81(1) SOA When a person is taken Police powers means an officer of the Public
PAGE 95 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT SEARCH AND officer means an officer of the SRA, or Transport Corporation appointed in into lawful custody, a member of the INSPECT a person employed in the transit police writing by that Corporation - police force may search, and take service, appointed in writing to be an (i) generally; or anything found upon, his or her person, authorised officer by the Chief (ii) for a particular case; or and may use such force as is Executive of the SRA. (iii) for particular areas of land; or reasonably necessary for those (iv) for particular types of premises - purposes. for the purposes of this section; and (b) “Corporation” means the Public r.24(3) If an authorised person has Transport Corporation reasonable cause to suspect that a s.218(2) An authorised officer of the parcel or bag that is being, or is to be, Corporation may, on production, if so transported on a passenger vehicle may required, of his authority or a member contain a dangerous or offensive object of the police force may - or substance, the authorised person may - (a) require the person in possession of the parcel or bag to open the parcel or bag for examination of its contents; or (b) open the parcel or bag and examine its contents.
(4) A person to whom a requirement is addressed under subreg(3) must comply with the requirement.
Expiation fee: $100 ($50 if juvenile) Penalty: $1000 or 3mths s.218(2) (a) Stop any vehicle or (1)An authorised officer may: person on Corporation land or premises, if the authorised person or (a) stop any vehicle or person on any member of the police force believes on land that is vested in or under the reasonable grounds that the vehicle or control of the SRA and that is used for person may be involved in an offence the receipt, dispatch of any luggage or against this Act or the regulations freight, and made under this Act; (b) inspect , search and examine any (b) search any such vehicle or any such vehicle or any goods in or upon luggage or other article on that vehicle any such vehicle or in the possession of or in the possession of any such person, any such person; and (c) demand the production of (c) require any such person to produce consignment notes, delivery dockets or consignment notes, delivery dockets or other documents relating to the receipt, POWER TO other documents relating to the receipt, despatch, delivery or ownership of any
PAGE 96 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT SEARCH AND dispatch, delivery or ownership of any goods found upon the inspection, INSPECT such luggage or article, and search or examination;
(d) seize any such luggage or article (d) take and impound any goods or that the authorised officer has property found on the inspection, reasonable grounds for suspecting has search or examination, which the been stolen. authorised person or member of the police force suspects on reasonable grounds, of having stolen or unlawfully obtained from the Corporation....
s.218 (3) TA Any person being a s.98 (2) TAA The power of an driver or person in charge of a vehicle, authorised officer to search includes or being a person , found in the the power to open any part of the circumstances described in sub-section vehicle or any luggage or other article (2)(a) - on the vehicle or in the possession of (a) refuses or fails to stop when the person. directed to do so... (b) refuses to submit any such vehicle (4) An authorised officer shall produce or any goods in or upon such vehicle or his or her authority if requested to do in his possession to inspection, search so by any person required to comply and examination...... with a requirement made by that officer (c) wilfully obstructs or refuses an for the purposes of this section. inspection, search or examination... (d) refuses to produce documentation (5) No personal liability is incurred by in accordance with (2)(c).. an authorised officer for any act done (da) refuses to hand over any goods or or omitted in good faith under this property re sub-section (2)(d); section. (e) forges or counterfeits an authority of an authorised officer or makes use of s.98(3) TAA Any person who: any forged, counterfeit or false (a) obstructs or hinders an authorised authority or personates the officer officer when exercising any power named in an authority or falsely under this section, or pretends to be an authorised officer - (b) does not comply with any is guilty of an offence. reasonable requirement made for the Penalty: $1000 purposes of this section by an authorised officer, is guilty of an offence. Max penalty: $500
POWER TO
PAGE 97 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT SEARCH AND INSPECT
SEIZURE POWERS Police powers Police powers s.223C TA A member of the police An authorised person, in accordance s.50 GRA When the breach of any force or an authorised officer may with the definition may confiscate provision of this Act or of any by-law seize any graffiti implement in the implements and report an offender for a is attended with any danger or possession who is on railway graffiti offence. However, the issuing annoyance to the public or any person, (Corporation) property or adjacent of a Expiation Notice must be any officer or servant of the department property, if that member or officer undertaken by a Police Officer or an or Commission may summarily believes on reasonable grounds that Authorised Person with Prescribed interfere to obviate or remove such the person - a) has the graffiti powers. danger or annoyance, or the person implement in his/her possession with causing the same, without prejudice to the intention of marking graffiti on the any proceeding against the offender for property of the Corporation or adjacent any penalty to which he may be liable property; or b) has used the graffiti implement for that purpose. Also refer to s.220 TA to remove danger or annoyance. POWER TO s.137 Transport Operations cl.41 Transport Administration s218B TA (1) In this section an s57PTA (1) A person reasonably By-law 27 A railway employee may REQUIRE NAME (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 - (Railway Offences) Regulation 1994 authorised officer is defined according suspected by a member of the police require a person on a railway: to AND ADDRESS (1) An authorised person may (1) An authorised person who to the meaning of s.218 or a person force or a prescribed officer to be provide the person’s correct name and require a person to state his/her name suspects that a person who is on a train appointed in writing by the Secretary committing an offence against the PTA address to that employee; to verify that and address if the authorised person: or on SRA or RAC property has (refer to (1B)) for the purposes of this may be required to state his/her full a name and address provided to the (a) finds or suspects that person of contravened a provision of this section. name and usual place of residence, and employee is correct. committing an offence against this Act Regulation, may direct the person to (2) An authorised person or to produce evidence of his/her identity. or the TIA chapter 6; (b) finds the provide his or her full name and member of the police force may (2) A person who refuses or fails to A person must not: refuse to provide; person in circumstances that lead, or residential address to the authorised request a person to state his or her comply, or states an incorrect name refuse to verify; or provide a false has information that leads, the person. name and address if the officer or and/or address is guilty of an offence. name and address. authorised person to suspect that the (3) The authorised person must warn member believes on reasonable (3) It is not an offence if an official person has just committed a relevant the person that it is an offence to fail or grounds that the person has committed identity card was not produced for Infringement notice penalty: $50 offence. refuse to comply with such a direction. or is about to commit an offence inspection and the person was not Max penalty: $200 (2) The authorised person may also (2) A person to whom such a direction against the TA or regulations. warned that it is an offence to fail to require the person to state the person’s is given must comply with it. comply with the request. age if the authorised person suspect Max penalty:$200 (3)An authorised person or member of that the person’s age is relevant for the the police force must inform the person Max penalty: $4000 enforcement of this act or the TIA, of the grounds for his/her belief in chapter 6. sufficient detail.... (4) Under this section, “prescribed (4) The authorised person may require (6)An authorised person or member of officer” means a person who is the person to give evidence of the the police force must state his/her name authorised by the Board to exercise person’s stated name, address and age and place of duty if requested to do so. powers under this section. POWER TO if it is suspected that the stated name, REQUIRE NAME age and address is false. (4)(a)A person must not refuse or fail
PAGE 98 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT AND ADDRESS (5) The authorised person must warn to comply with the request. the person that it is an offence not to Infringement notice penalty: $100 comply with (1), (2) & (4) except Max penalty: $500 where the person has a reasonable (4)(b) &(c) A person must not supply excuse. an incorrect name and/or address. Max Penalty: $3000 Max penalty: $500 (7)A person has not committed an offence against this section if the person is proved not to have committed a suspected offence. Police officer may arrest without a warrant. POWER TO s.138 TO(PT)A This section applies REQUIRE if an authorised person for a railway INFORMATION reasonably suspects - (a) an offence FROM CERTAIN against this act has been committed; PERSONS and (b) the offence relates to the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway; and (c) a person may be able to give information about the offence. (2) The authorised person may require the person to give information about the offence. (3) When making the requirement, the authorised person must warn the person it is an offence to fail to give the information, unless the person has a reasonable excuse. (4) The person must give the information, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
POWER TO SERVE Schedule 1 of the Justices s.117 TAA An authorised officer s.212(1) TA A member of the police r.39(2) PT(RPS:CP) Reg An s.53A GRA (2) An authorised person INFRINGEMENT Regulations provides that an may serve a penalty notice on a person force or an authorised officer who expiation notice under these who has reason to believe that a person NOTICES authorised person may infringement if it appears to the officer that the has reason to believe that a person has regulations may be issued by - has committed a prescribed offence notices re s.116 of the TO(PT)Act person has committed or is guilty of an committed a transport infringement (a) a member of the police force; or against this Act or the by-laws, other offence under this Act or the may, in accordance with the (b) a person who is authorised in than a by-law made under section 23 regulations, being an offence regulations, serve on that person an writing by the Board to issue expiation (23b), may, at or about the time the
PAGE 99 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT prescribed by the regulations for the infringement notice. notices for the alleged offence; or alleged offence is believed to have been purposes of this section. (c) a person who satisfies criteria committed, give an infringement notice s.250 TA A document required or determined by the Board for the to the alleged offender. In this section, “authorised officer” permitted by this Act to be served on a purposes of this regulation. means: person other than a corporation shall be Under ss(11) a person who is (a) a member of the police force, or served - authorised to issue infringement notices (b) a person declared by the regulations (a) by delivering that document is not eligible to be an authorised to be an authorised officer for the personally; person for the purposes of ss(3), (5) or purposes of this section. (b) by prepaying and posting the (7). document as a letter addressed to that Reg 45 provides: person at his last known place of The following persons are authorised residence or business or, if he is officers for offences relating to railway carrying on business at two or more services conducted by the SRA; places, at one of those places; (a) a police officer; (c) by leaving the document at the last (b) a member of the transit police; known place of residence of that person (c) any other person or member of a with some person apparently a resident class of persons appointed in writing by of that place and apparently not less the Chief Executive of the SRA than sixteen years of age; or (d) by leaving the document at the last known place of business of that person, or if he is carrying on business at two or more places, at one of those places, with some person apparently in the service of that person and apparently not less than sixteen years of age. POWER TO s.277 Criminal Code This provision s.220 TA (1)If a member of the s.17A (1) SOA Where - s.50 GRA When the breach of any REMOVE provides the power to defend premises police force or any officer or agent (a) a person trespasses on premises; provision of this Act or of any by-law OFFENDERS against trespasses or remove disorderly of the Corporation believes on and is attended with any danger or persons. It is lawful for a person in reasonable grounds - a) that a person is (b) the nature of the trespass is such as annoyance to the public or any person, peaceable possession or entitled to committing an offence against this Act to interfere with the enjoyment of the any officer or servant of the department control or management of any land, or the regulations; and b) that the premises by the occupier; and or Commission may summarily structure, vessel, or place, and for any commission of the offence is or is (c) the trespasser is asked by an interfere to obviate or remove such POWER TO person lawfully assisting him or her or likely to be attended with danger or authorised person to leave the danger or annoyance, or the person REMOVE acting by his or her authority to use annoyance to the public or hindrance to premises, causing the same, without prejudice to OFFENDERS such force as is reasonably necessary: any member of the police force or the trespasser is, if he or she fails to any proceeding against the offender for in order to prevent any person from officers or agents of the Corporation - leave the premises forthwith or again any penalty to which he may be liable. wrongfully entering or remaining on the member of the police force or agent trespasses on the premises within 24 such land; or, to remove any person of the Corporation may ... summarily hours of being asked to leave, guilty of who conducts him or herself in a remove the person and any property of an offence disorderly manner, provided that he or the person therefrom or take such other Penalty: $2000 or 6mths she does not do grievous bodily harm action as is necessary to obviate or imprisonment
PAGE 100 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT to such person. remove the danger. In this section, “authorised person” in (2) The aforementioned officer may relation to premises, means - use such force as is reasonable in the (a) the occupier, or a person acting on circumstances. the authority of the occupier; (b) where the premises are the premises of a school or other educational institution or belong to the crown or an instrumentality of the Crown, the person who has the administration, control or management of the premises, or a person acting on the authority of such a person. POWER TO S.140 TO(PT) Act 1994 - (1) An r. 43 A person who fails to comply r.324 PTCR (1)An authorised r.38 PT(RPS:CP)R (1) An By-law 18 No person shall enter or REMOVE authorised person may direct a with a direction under the Regulation person may ask a person to leave a authorised person may request a remain in any carriage... containing the OFFENDERS person to leave the railway if the to leave any train or SRA premises train or tram or Corporation premises person to leave a train or railway full number of persons.. except with person is found committing an offence may be removed from the train or if: a) when entering the train or tram it premises if: (a) a person commits an the consent of the persons in such against section 141 (creating a premises by a police officer. was fully loaded with passengers; offence against the act or regulations; carriage or compartment and any disturbance), 142 (travelling without b)the person’s clothing or luggage may (b) the person appears to be intoxicated person who enters or remains in such a paying a fare) or 143 (travelling on in the opinion of an authorised person or under the influence of a drug; (c) carriage without consent and refuses or invalid tickets) or the Transport soil or damage any property of the the person is not properly dressed, or neglects to go out immediately upon Infrastructure Act 1994, s.146 Corporation of the property of any the condition of the person or person’ requested to do so by the Guard or (trespassing on a railway); and the other person; c) the person refuses, or clothing , or.... anything carried by the other railway officer, may be authorised person believes the person is unable to pay the appropriate fare or person is .... would cause justified summarily removed. may continue or repeat the offence. charge; d) the person remains in a offence to another person or is likely to doorway, vestibule, corridor or the soil a part of the vehicle or premises. Max penalty: $200 (2) The direction must not be given, if gangway after being asked by an obeying the direction could put the authorised person to refrain from doing (2) An authorised person may request a s.44 GRA Any passenger who - person’s safety at risk. so; e) the person enters, boards or person to leave a train if: (a) when (1) fails to produce a proper ticket and (3) Unless the person has a reasonable attempts to enter/board or remain on entering the train, it displayed a “full” refuses to pay his proper fare on excuse, the person must obey the board... after (being) asked.. to refrain sign or was fully loaded with demand; or direction.. from doing so; f) or the person commits passengers, or (b) the person refuses or (2) travels in a railway carriage of a POWER TO an offence against the act or is unable to pay the appropriate fare. class superior to that for which he is REMOVE Max Penalty: $3000 regulations. provided with a ticket and refuses to OFFENDERS (3) A person who fails to comply pay the fare for the superior class on (4) If the person does not obey.. the (2)A person must comply with a immediately.. is guilty of an offence. demand; authorised person may use force that is request immediately. or reasonable to get the person to leave Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile (3) travels in or enters a railway Infringement penalty: $50 Max penalty: $1000 or 3mths carriage set apart for any particular Railway re TI(R) Act Max penalty: $1000 imprisonment. person or class of persons and refuses to quit the carriage when requested to (3)An authorised person may remove If a person fails to comply, a member do so; or
PAGE 101 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT from a vehicle or premises any person of the police force or a person (4) not having a sleeping car ticket, who fails to comply with a request. authorised by the Board to exercise refuses to quit when requested to do so, powers... may exercise reasonable force may be removed from a railway to remove the person. carriage by any officer or servant of the department or Commission, and s.56(8) PTA If a person has been prosecuted for such penalty as he may required to alight from a public have incurred under this Act or by- passenger vehicle under sub-section (6) laws. fails to do so in accordance with that requirement, a member of the police force or a person who is authorised by the Board to exercise powers under this subsection may exercise reasonable force to remove the person from the vehicle.
(6) An employee of the operator of a public passenger vehicle who has reason to believe that a person has “behaved in a disorderly or offensive manner while in or on a public passenger vehicle” (re ss(5)) may require that person to alight from the vehicle. POWERS OF s.147 Transport Infrastructure Act Police powers s.219 TA (1) This section applies if a s.76 SOA If the owner of any s.49 GRA If any person - ARREST - A police officer may arrest a person member of the police force or any property, or the servant or agent of the (1) trespasses upon a railway; or without a warrant if the police officer officer or agent of the PTC believes on owner of any property, finds a person (2) is drunk, or behaves in a violent or reasonable believes: the person has reasonable grounds that a person has committing an offence on, or with offensive manner to the annoyance of just committed an offence against committed an offence against this Act respect to, that property, the owner, or others on the railway, or at any station s.107 TIA (obstructing authorised or any regulation made under this Act. the servant or agent, may apprehend or platform therof, or in any carriage person), s.146 TIA (trespassing on the offender and deliver the offender thereon; or railway) or the Criminal Code (railway (2) The member, officer or agent may forthwith into the custody of a member (3) does or attempts to do, or counsels, offences); and complaint and summons without warrant arrest the person if the of the police force to be dealt with aids or assists another person to do, proceedings would be ineffective. member, officer or agent believes on according to the law. anything which may endanger the lives reasonable grounds that the arrest is of persons employed on or travelling s.137(6)(a) TO(PT) Act A police necessary for any one or more of the on the railway; or officer may arrest a person without a following reasons (4) offends against any of the warrant if the police officer reasonably (a) to ensure the appearance of the provisions of this Act or any by-law, believes - person before a court of competent and refuses to give his name and (a) the person has just committed an jurisdiction; or address when required to do so, or offence against subsection(5); and (b) to preserve public order; or gives a false name and address,
PAGE 102 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT (b) proceedings by way of complaint (c) to prevent the continuation or it shall be lawful for any police officer and summons against the person would repetition of the offence or the or constable, or any officer or servant be ineffective. commission of a further offence; or of the Department or Commission, s.34 Vagrants, Gaming and other (d) for the safety or welfare of without warrant or authority, to arrest Offences Act 1931 Any person who members of the public or of the person. and detain the person so offending, and without reasonable excuse, the proof to take him before justices of the peace whereof shall lie upon the person - (3) The member, officer or agent may to be dealt with as the law directs. (a) travels or attempts to travel without ask any other person to assist him or having previously paid the person’s her to arrest an alleged offender, and fare; or that other person may assist in the (b) having paid the person’s fare for a arrest. certain distance, proceeds by railway beyond such distance without (4) If an alleged offender is arrested in previously paying the additional fare respect of a summary offence, he or she for the additional distance; or may only be arrested for so long as the (c) refuses or neglects to quit on reason for the arrest under sub-section arriving at the point to which the (2) continues. The person detaining person has paid the fare; the alleged offender as soon as the shall be liable to a penalty not reason ceases to exist, regardless of exceeding $40, in addition to the whether or not the alleged offender has proper fare, or to imprisonment for been charged with the offence. 6months. (2) All employees and other persons on (5) If the person responsible for behalf of Queensland Railways and all arresting an alleged offender is not a police officers may arrest any person member of the police force or an officer POWERS OF who is reasonably suspected of having authorised under sub-section (7), the ARREST committed or attempted to commit any person must give the alleged offender offence against this section, and detain into the charge of a member of the the person until the person can be taken police force or an officer authorised before the court to be dealt with under sub-section (7) as soon as is according to law. practicable after arresting the alleged offender (unless sub-section (4) applies).
(6) If a member of the police force or an officer authorised under sub-section (7) arrests an alleged offender or is given charge of an alleged offender as soon as is practicable before a bail justice or the Magistrates’ Court to be dealt with according to the law (unless sub-section (4) applies).
PAGE 103 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT
(7) The PTC may authorise, in writing, officers to convey people arrested under this section to a bail justice or the Magistrates Court. An authority may be general or specific. POWER TO Police Powers Police Powers s.219A TA An officer of the PTC may Police powers Police powers ARREST PEOPLE arrest any person found on property AGAINST WHOM owned or occupied by the Corporation WARRANTS HAVE if - BEEN ISSUED (a) the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person is a person against whom a warrant to arrest or a warrant to imprison has been issued; and (b) the officer is authorised to do so under sub-section (2). (2) The PTC may authorise, in POWER TO writing, officers to arrest people under ARREST PEOPLE sub-section (1). An authority may be general or specific. AGAINST WHOM (3) An officer who arrests a person WARRANTS HAVE under this section must take the person BEEN ISSUED as soon as practicable to a member of the police force. OBSTRUCTING s.107 TIA A person must not obstruct s.225 TA Any person who assaults, r.32 A person who is in a passenger By-law No.94 - Any person who AUTHORISED an authorised person in the exercise of resists, obstructs, hinders or delays or vehicle or at prescribed premises must: obstructs, hinders, impedes or attempts PERSON his power under this or any other act, incites or encourages any other person (a) comply with a reasonable direction to obstruct, hinder or impede a special unless the person has a reasonable to assault, resist, obstruct, hinder or of an authorised person; and (b) obey constable in the course of his duties is excuse. The authorised person must delay - any sign displayed in the vehicle or in guilty of an offence. warn the person that it is an offence to (a) any officer or agent of a corporation or on the premises obstruct the authorised person and the or of the Department of Transport in Penalty: $200 authorised person considers the the execution of his duty under this or Expiation fee: $100 or $50 (juvenile) person’s conduct is an obstruction. any other Act or regulations made Max penalty: $1000 under this Act; or Max penalty: $4500 (b) any person lawfully assisting any S.53(9) PTA such officer or agent in the execution of his duty under this or any other Act or regulations made under this Act - is guilty of an offence. Penalty: $2500 or imprisonment for 6mths.
PAGE 104 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - TRANSPORT VICTORIA - TRANSPORT ACT 1983 SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA - OPERATIONS (PASSENGER ADMINISTRATION ACT 1988; (TA) AND TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 1994; PASSENGER GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 TRANSPORT) ACT 1994 TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT CORPORATION) TRANSPORT (REGULAR PASSENGER (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 1994 (PTCR) SERVICES; CONDUCT OF 1994 PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994; SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT RAILWAY POLICE By-law 94 s.2 Every special constable POWERS shall, within the limits of the Railway, exercise and enjoy such powers, authorities and immunities, be liable to such duties and have such responsibilities as are conferred or imposed, by law, upon a duly appointed member of the Police Force.
PAGE 105 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX D PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 106 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX E — CONDUCT ON RAILWAYS
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. ATTEMPTS
s.154 TO(PT) Act- A person must not r.42 A person who attempts to do attempt to commit offences of the Act anything that is prohibited by a provision and the Criminal Code. Max Penalty: of the regulations is taken to have half the maximum penalty for committing committed an offence and is punishable the offence. accordingly TRESPASS
S.146 Transport Infrastructure Act - It s.223 TA It is an offence to wilfully r.30 A pedestrian must not, without the s.48(3) GRA Trespassing on railway is an offence to wilfully trespass on a trespass upon any land or premises permission of an authorised person, enter property (not being a station, platform or railway. owned or occupied by the Corporation. or remain on any part of prescribed railway crossing or other part to which the premises that is not set aside for use by public are allowed access) Infringement Notice Penalty: $135 pedestrians Max Penalty 1st offence: $500 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 (juvenile) Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max Penalty:$3000 Max Penalty 2nd offence: $1000 or Max penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $200 3mths imprisonment.
GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM
r.10(3) A person must not wilfully cl.27(1) A person must not graffiti r.301(3)(d) A person must not write, r.35 A person must not, without the s.43(3) GRA Defacing boards or notices damage a railway. (write, draw or affix any word, draw, affix any word representation, permission of the operator, write, draw, (railway carriage, rolling stock or railway Max Penalty: $3000 representation, character or poster); or character on or to any rail or road vehicle paint or affix a word, representation, station) (including defacement by way of destroy, damage or deface any train or or the Corporation’s premises. character or poster on to a train, part of a graffiti whether indecent or not); or r.10(4) (a) A person must not put SRA property or any tunnel, bridge, train, part of railway premises or anything anything on the seat of rolling stock that sound barrier or other rail infrastructure situated at railway premises. would soil the seat eg. placing feet on facility vested in, or under the control of, Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile seat; or (b) put graffiti on the railway. RAC. Max Penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $500 s.43(2) GRA Damaging railway property Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Infringement Notice Penalty: $200 s.223B TA A person must not without s.56(3) PTA A person must not, without (including damage by way of graffiti Max Penalty:$3000 lawful excuse injure, damage or deface lawful authority, damage or deface a train whether indecent or not) property of the Corporation, or adjacent or any structure, equipment, materials, property by marking graffiti on that sign or notice used for the purpose of, or Infringement notice penalty: $50
PAGE 107 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. property. The same penalty applies to a in connection with, a railway service. Max penalty $600 person aiding and abetting the principal offender. Upon conviction the court may order the Max Penalty where cost of repair or convicted person to pay the operator.. making good the property(incl. labour such amount as the court thinks just to and materials) < $5000: $2500 compensate the operator for loss arising from the commission of the offence. r.301(4)(b) A person must not destroy, damage, deface, mutilate or injure any Max penalty: $4000 . property of the Corporation. Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Max Penalty: $1500 s.48 (1) (a) Summary Offences Act - A By-law 31 A person shall not, without person who without lawful authority posts permission of the Commission post, give a bill on property is guilty of an offence. or distribute, stick, paint or write.... any placard, bill, advertisement, or other matter within or on any post, fence, gate, platform, wall, building or other property or premises of the Commission.
Max penalty: $2000 or 6mths Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 imprisonment Max penalty: $200 POSSESSION OF IMPLEMENT
s.37C Vagrants, Gaming and Other cl.27(2) Any person on a train or SRA s.223B(3) &(4) A person on any General provisions By-law 23 A person on railway premises Offences Act 1931 A person must not premises or RAC premises found in property of the Corporation or adjacent s.86 Criminal Law Consolidation Act must not have in his/her possession a without lawful excuse, the proof of which possession of any thing intended for use property must not, without lawful excuse, 1935 - carry implement with intent to spray can, felt pen, crayon or other article lies on him or her, possess a graffiti in damaging property is guilty of an have in his/her possession a graffiti damage without lawful authority. capable of being used to deface property, instrument under circumstances that give offence. implement. Same penalty applies to unless the person has a lawful excuse.. rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person aiding and abetting. Max penalty: 2yrs imprisonment Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 instrument has been used or is intended to Penalty notice: $100 Max penalty: $200 be used to commit a graffiti offence. Max penalty: $1000 s.48(4) Summary Offences Act - s.223 E The Children’s Court may carrying graffiti with intention of marking Max penalty: $5250 or 2 yrs stipulate that a child found guilty of an graffiti or carrying graffiti implement of a imprisonment offence against S.223B, take part in a prescribed class without lawful excuse in The court may also order compensation graffiti clean-up program (not exceeding a public place to the owner and/or community service 40hrs and not exceeding 3mths) Max penalty: $2000 or 6mths including an order to remove graffiti. imprisonment INTENT TO ENDANGER PERSONAL SAFETY
PAGE 108 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. s.211(1) Crimes Act 1900 A person For general offences with respect to s.296 Criminal Code Any person who s.319 Criminal Code Any person who, who maliciously does any act or omits to property refer to ss.84-86 Criminal Law with intent to injure or to endanger the with intent to injure or to endanger the do any act with the intention of causing Consolidation Act 1935. safety of any person travelling by any safety of any person travelling by any the death of, inflicting bodily injury or railway... : (1) deals with the railway, or railway...: (1) deals with the railway... endangering the safety of any person on with anything whatever, upon or near the (so) as to affect or endanger the free and the railway or on a train is guilty of an railway, in such a manner as to affect or safe use of the railway or safety of any offence. endanger the free and safe use of the such person; (2) shows any light or railway or the safety of any such person; signal, or in any way deals with any (2) shows any light or signal, or in any existing light or signal, upon or near the way deals with any existing light or railway; (3) by any omission to do any signal, upon or near the railway; or (3) act which it is duty to do causes the safety by any omission to do any act which it is of any such person to be endangered; is duty to do causes the safety of any such guilty of a crime. person to be endangered: is guilty of a Max penalty: 25yrs imprisonment crime. Max penalty: life imprisonment with Max penalty: 20yrs imprisonment hard labour
INTENT TO DAMAGE RAILWAY s.211(2) Crimes Act 1900 A person s.232 Crimes Act 1958 Any person who s.43 (1) Summary Offences A person s.451 Criminal Code Any person who s.467 Criminal Code Any person who who maliciously does any act or omits to unlawfully and maliciously: must not without lawful authority to do unlawfully, and with intent to obstruct the unlawfully, and with intent to obstruct the do any act with the intention of causing places/casts/throws upon or across ...any so, and knowing that no such lawful use of a railway or to injure any property use of a railway or to injure any property any train to be derailed, destroyed or thing; takes up/removes/displaces any authority exists: (a) interfere with any upon a railway: ss(1)-(3) as above; is upon a railway: ss(1)-(3) as above, is damaged, is guilty of an offence. rail sleeper or other thing belonging to the part of a railway, tramway or track guilty of a crime. guilty of a crime. railway; turns/moves/diverts any points designed for the passage of a vehicle; (b) Max penalty: 14yrs imprisonment or other (railway) machinery; interfere with any signal or machinery shows/hides/removes any signal or .....; (c) place any obstruction on any Max penalty: life imprisonment with (railway) light; or does/causes to be done such railway... or in any other manner hard labour. any other matter or thing; with intent...to obstruct or cause the obstruction of a obstruct/uspet /overthrow/injure/destroy vehicle using any such railway...; (d) do s.469 Criminal Code Any person who any (railway) engine/tender/ anything else that is likely to result in wilfully and unlawfully destroys or carriage/truck, is guilty of an indictable damage to a vehicle using any such damages any part of a railway or any offence. railway... work connected with a railway is guilty of a crime. Max penalty: 5yrs imprisonment Max penalty: $8000 or 2 yrs Max penalty: 20 yrs imprisonment Max penalty: 14yrs imprisonment s.213 Crimes Act 1900 A person who: imprisonment intentionally and without lawful excuse, s.233 Crimes Act 1958 Any person who s.462 Criminal Code Any person who, does or omits to do an act, which causes by unlawful act or wilful omission or by an unlawful act, or by any intentional the passage or operation of a train or neglect obstructs/causes to be obstructed omission to do any act which it is his duty tram(check) to be obstructed; or assists a any engine or carriage on any railway, or to do, causes any engine or vehicle in use
PAGE 109 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. person ... knowing that the person does aids or assists...is guilty of an indictable upon a railway to be obstructed in its not have a lawful excuse...is guilty of an offence. passage on the railway, is guilty of a offence. misdemeanour,
Max penalty: 2yrs imprisonment. Max penalty; 6mths imprisonment Max penalty: 2yrs imprisonment
ENDANGERING SAFETY BY ACT/OMISSION s.212 Crimes Act 1900 A person who by an unlawful act or a negligent s.307 Criminal Code Any person who, s.329 Criminal Code Any person who omission, endangers the safety of any by any unlawful act, or by any omission by unlawful act or omission to do an act person who is on, or who is being to do any act which it is his duty to do, which it is his duty to do, cause the safety conveyed on, a railway is guilty of an causes the safety of any person travelling of (railway passenger) to be endangered is offence. by any railway to be endangered is guilty guilty of a misdemeanour. of a misdemeanour. Max penalty: 3yrs imprisonment. Max penalty: 2 yrs imprisonment Max penalty: 2yrs imprisonment with hard labour s.41 GRA Any person who encroaches RAILWAY DAMAGE /OBSTRUCTING on a railway by making any building, RAILWAY (WITHOUT ELEMENT OF fence, ditch or other obstacle thereon; INTENT) digs, removes, alters the soil or surface of the railway; fills up, diverts, alters or obstructs any ditch, drain or watercourse.. such that it is stopped or the waterflow is obstructed; or to damage or injure a railway; fells or removes any tree, shrub or timber growing on a railway
max penalty: $200 for every day each offence is committed or suffered to continue. USE OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT/ INTERFERING WITH RAILWAY s. 144 TIA A person must not interfere cl.23 A person must not use the public r.303 A person must not without the r.19 A person must not , without lawful By-law 25 No person shall make use of with a railway, unless the person has the address system or other communications permission of an authorised person: authority: communication between the passengers railway manager’s written approval. This system of a train, or apply or release any (1) ..interfere with... or operate or attempt (a) interfere with the controls of, or and employee.. in charge of a train, or does not apply to a person carrying out brake on a train. to operate any equipment, rail vehicle.. or equipment installed in, or attached to, a apply any brake, without reasonable
PAGE 110 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. urgent maintenance of the railway. any apparatus or device owned or passenger vehicle (train); or excuse. Max penalty: $12000 Penalty notice: $100 operated by the Corporation or; (b) interfere with any ticket validating equipment. An approval may be subject to a Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 reasonable condition and the person must Max penalty: $2000 Expiation fee:$100 or $50 if juvenile Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 comply with the condition. (2) light or extinguish or operate any Max penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $200 lamp, light or signal owned or operated s.85(2) GRA Where a light is mistaken Max penalty: $3000 by the Corporation for or obscures or adversely interferes with the effectiveness of a railway light, s.145 TIA A person must comply with a Infringement Notice Penalty; $100 notice may be served on the owner of the written notice requiring the person to Max penalty: $2000 light to extinguish, remove, modify or rectify the interference within a stated refrain from using the light. Failure to reasonable time (unless the person has a comply is an offence. reasonable excuse). Max penalty: $200 and $10/daynotice r.303 A person must not, without is not complied with. An authorised Max penalty: $3000 reasonable excuse, apply any brake or s.57 Rail Safety Act A person who person may enter the place or premises make use of any emergency device fitted tampers with or disables: the safety and carry out or give effect to the Otherwise the person must pay cost of to a rail vehicle. equipment of a railway or rolling stock; directions in the notice. Any damage rectifying the interference or altering the the interlocking system of a railway; any resulting to any railway property, or construction, maintenance or operation of Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 other safeworking system associated with person or property of any person shall the railway because of the interference. Max penalty: $2000 a railway, is guilty of an offence. be deemed a tort in nuisance.
s.319(2) & s.467(2) Criminal Code as s.232 Crimes Act as above above Max penalty: $10000
“interlocking system” includes any lever.... or devices that operate or control points and signals or signals, at locations where trains can be directed from one track to another and that are interlocked to prevent conflicting movements of OBSTRUCTING RAILWAY trains.
s.469 Criminal Code as above r.301(6) A person must not place any s212 Crimes Act & cl.27 (1)as above thing on any railway or tramway track. s.56(1) PTA A person must not: (a) s.42 GRA Any person who unlawfully: throw or place an object that might (1) throws or puts any stone, gravel or Max penalty: $2000 impede the free passage of a .. train; (b) timber, or any substance, whether solid or interfere with any structure, equipment, liquid, or any matter or thing on a r.315 A person must not create an sign or notice necessary for the safe railway; or obstruction in or about any train or tram operation of a railway service; (c) or (2) does any act which obstructs or might or the Corporation’s premises. otherwise obstruct or impede the proper obstruct the working of a railway, or
PAGE 111 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. operation of a railway service. endangers or might endanger the lives of Infringement Notice penalty: $50 persons travelling thereon; or Max penalty: $1000 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile (4) places any rolling-stock or appliance Max penalty: $15000 on a railway; or r.304 A person must not, without (5) moves or leaves any part of the reasonable excuse, cause or attempt to (2) An employee of the railway service rolling-stock or appliances on a railway; cause a train or tram in motion to be may take reasonable action to have the or stopped. object removed. (6) moves or in any way interferes with any signals, points, or stop-blocks, or Infringement Notice Penalty: $75 shows any signal likely to mislead; or Max penalty: $2000 (7) removes from any railway or railway premises, or has in his/her possession any rolling-stock, tarpaulins, tools, appliances or railway property of any kind; or (8) cuts down, breaks, removes or destroys any fence, building, or bridge, or any telegraph wire or post in or upon any railway; or (9) attempts or aids/assists in doing any of the above
Max penalty: $200 or imprisonment not > 6 mths.
THROWING ANY OBJECT ON A RAILWAY cl.40 A person must not throw any thing r.310(4)(c) A person must not while in r.20(1) A person must not throw or By-law 47 No person shall throw, or at or from a train. or upon any rail vehicle or Corporation’s catapult an object while in a passenger cause to be thrown, at or from any Penalty notice: $100 premises, throw any thing at any vehicle, vehicle or at prescribed premises. carriage.. or on to any railway or any premises or other property...whether or (2) A person must not throw or catapult station building...or any premises.. any not owned or occupied by the an object from a passenger vehicle, or at a glass, stone, or other missile, or any filth, Corporation. passenger vehicle. dirt, rubbish, or other matter of a similar nature. Max penalty: $1500 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Penalty: $1000 or 3mths Max penalty: $200 LITTER
r.11 A person must not leave wastepaper s.28 A person must not litter on a train r.301(1)(c) A person must not while on r.33 A person must not without the or other rubbish on a railway except in a or railway premises, or deposit anything any rail vehicle or Corporation premises, permission of the operator: deposit container provided for that purpose. that may endanger any person or throw down, drop or otherwise deposit, garden refuse on prescribed premises; or property, otherwise than in a receptacle except in a receptacle provided for that deposit rubbish in any train or on provided for that purpose. purpose, any litter, tin, carton, package, prescribed premises except in receptacles
PAGE 112 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. paper, glass, food, refuse or other rubbish. provided for that purpose; or set fire to Infringement Notice Penalty: $60 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 garden refuse or rubbish.. Max Penalty:$750 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Max Penalty: $500 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $500 FIRE r. 312 A person must not: light a fire on the Corporation’s premises or on any rail vehicle, unless authorised in writing; or bring any burning substance ... or by any act or omission cause.. to be brought into or upon any rail vehicle or premises in circumstances likely to cause injury to or to endanger any person or to damage the rail vehicle or any property; or throw or drop... or ... cause it to happen that a burning substance including a cigarette is thrown or dropped on to or from any such vehicle or premises.
Infringement notice penalty: $100 Max penalty: $2000 A person must not: leave a fire which has been lit by that person .... until such fire is completely extinguished; or throw any burning substance at a rail vehicle or premises.
Max penalty: $2000
DANGEROUS GOODS
s.138(1) TIA While travelling on a r.310 A person must not take or attempt r. 24(2) A person must not, without By-law 23A A person on railway railway, a person must not possess or to take into or onto any rail vehicle or permission of an authorised person - premises must not have in his/her have in their luggage any dangerous premises: explosives, inflammable liquid (a) carry a dangerous or offensive object possession a solvent or other volatile goods. A person does not commit an or any thing which may project beyond or substance on a passenger vehicle; or substance capable of inducing a narcotic offence unless the goods are of a type the rail vehicle; or anything that a (b) cause a dangerous or offensive object effect if inhaled or ingested, unless the commonly used for personal, domestic or Corporation employee has told the person or substance to be carried on a passenger person has a lawful excuse.. household use; and the quantity of the is liable to cause injury to or endanger vehicle. goods is reasonable considering their any person or to damage the rail vehicle nature and common use or any property. Expiation fee: $100 ($50 if juvenile)
PAGE 113 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. Max penalty: $7500 Infringement notice penalty: $50 Penalty: $1000 or 3mths imprisonment Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $200 Dangerous goods (code) must be packed, marked and labelled as required by the r.301(3)(c) A person on any rail vehicle s.34 GRA Any person who code. or premises must not convey or attempt to sends/attempts to send by rail, or carries convey any goods, substances or things or deposits on any railway, any loaded Max penalty: $7500 which are liable to cause injury to or to firearm or dangerous goods or package endanger any person or to damage any containing such goods without Other dangerous goods (those that rail vehicle or property. authorisation and without distinctly endanger the railway or the safety of a marking the package, ... person on the railway) must be clearly Max penalty: $1000 labelled as dangerous goods: and must be Max penalty: $200 or imprisonment packed, marked and labelled in a r.313 & 314 A person must not, unless a not > 6mths reasonable way considering the goods’ member of the police force on duty: nature and quantity; and the safety of the bring/carry or attempt to bring/carry any By-law 23B A person on railway railway and people working or travelling ... firearm or imitation firearm; or premises must not have in his/her on it. discharge or attempt to discharge any possession a weapon made or adapted for firearm, on any rail vehicle or premises, use for causing injury to a person, unless Max penalty: $3000 unless authorised in writing by the that person has a lawful excuse... Corporation. Max penalty: $2000 Max penalty: $200 r.10 INJURIOUS BEHAVIOUR
Entry and exit r.10(1) A person must not: cl.15 A person must not enter/leave a r.305(e) A person must not open or hold r.21 A person must not board or alight By-law 20 No person, unless a railway (a) enter or leave; or (b) open a door train: (a) while the train is in motion; open any door of any rail vehicle (which from, or attempt to board or alight from, a employee on duty, shall, without (other than a door connecting rolling provides access outside) while in motion. train while it is in motion. reasonable excuse, enter/leave or attempt stock) of moving rolling stock; to enter/leave any carriage.. while the Max penalty: $1000 train is in motion; or elsewhere than at the side of the carriage, or other vehicle s.222(3) TA A person must not without adjoining the platform or other appointed reasonable excuse: place .. to enter/leave
(a) enter/attempt to enter, board/attempt to board, or leave/attempt to leave a carriage while in motion;
Infringement Notice Penalty: $135 Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Infringement notice penalty: $120 Penalty notice: $100 Max penalty: $500 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $200 Max penalty:$1500 Max penalty: $500 or, (b) protrude any part of his/her body
PAGE 114 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. (c) put a part of a person’s body out of: a from an open door or window.. while in r.18 A person must not allow a part of window; or door of rolling stock (unless (c) or enter/leave train through a window motion. his/her body, or an object, to protrude that person is getting off at that platform); from a window, door or other opening ... Infringement Notice Penalty: $135 passage of a train. Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Penalty notice: $100 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $1500 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile r.301(5) A person must not protrude any Max penalty: $500 object from a door or window while in By-law 22 enter/leave any carriage.. by motion. r.22(a) A person must not, without getting through a window. lawful authority board or alight from a Max penalty: $1000 train through a window. Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $200 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $1000 or 3mths imprisonment PROPER ENTRANCE/EXIT r.309(1) A person must not without By-law 20 as above. r.10(1) A person must not enter or leave (b ) except at the side of the train authorised permission or reasonable a railway other than through a proper adjoining the platform or other place excuse, enter or leave a station, platform, entrance exit. designated by the SRA for persons to or part of the Corporations premises other enter or leave the train; than by an entrance or exit provided..; enter/leave or attempt to enter/leave a rail Penalty notice:$100 vehicle other than by means of a doorway adjoining a platform. cl.14 A person must not enter/leave any station/platform/work/premises unless connected with SRA for entry/exit.
This does not apply to an authorised person in the execution of his/her duty. Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $1500 Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Penalty notice: $100 r.212 A person must not board a rail Max Penalty:$1500 vehicle where that vehicle has stopped cl.16 A person must not board or leave only to set down passengers or alight from a train at a station not scheduled to pick- a vehicle that has stopped only to pick up up or set -down passengers (except with passengers. permission from an authorised person).
Penalty notice: $100 Max penalty: $500
PAGE 115 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. OPENING TRAIN OR RAILWAY DOOR
r.10(1)(b) A person must not open a cl.20 A person must not block a train r.305 A person must not without r.22(c) A person must not, without By-law 21 No person, other than a door (other than a door connecting rolling door, open an unlocked train door while reasonable excuse: unlock a locked lawful authority, open a locked door of a railway employee on duty, shall, without stock) of moving rolling stock. the train is in motion or interfere with an vehicle door; lock an unlocked vehicle train. reasonable excuse, open a locked carriage automatic train door (unless an authorised door; close or interfere with any locked door ... or any door, whether locked or not person in the execution of his/her duty). door or gate on the corporation’s while the train is in motion. premises; or open or hold open a rail vehicle door while in motion. Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Infringement Notice Penalty:$100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $200 Max penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $1000
r.305(e) A person must not: close or interfere with any gate or door on the Corporation’s premises which has been unlocked or opened by an authorised person or railway employee; open or hold open any door of any rail vehicle (which provides access outside) while in motion.
Max penalty: $1000
r.306 A person must not prevent or attempt to prevent an automatic door from closing or opening; or open or attempt to open a door before the release mechanism is operated...; or interfere with a door in a manner likely to cause damage to the operating mechanism. Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Max penalty: $1000 TRAVEL NOT ALLOWED ON CERTAIN PARTS OF TRAIN
r.10(2) A person must not enter rolling cl.22 A person must not travel on any r.309(2) A person must not r.16 (1) A person must not occupy a part By-law 22 No person, other than a stock not designed for passengers or ride portion of a train not intended for the travel/attempt to travel, or mount/attempt of a passenger vehicle designated by an railway employee on duty, shall, without on the outside of rolling stock. conveyance of passengers incl. engine; to mount, a locomotive or roof of a train operator as a prohibited area: while the reasonable excuse, travel on the roof, roof, steps and footboard; stairs of a or tram or a coupling or communicating vehicle is in motion; or contrary to steps or footboard of any carriage or on double decked train. platform or any part of a train or tram not stipulations contained in a notice affixed an engine or on any portion of any Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Penalty notice: $100 intended for passengers. It is also an or near the relevant part of the vehicle carriage or other vehicle not intended for
PAGE 116 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. Max penalty: $3000 offence to mount, climb or walk on any (2) It is a defence against subr.(1)(a) to the conveyance of passengers. A person cl.21 Unauthorised entry to crew part of the Corporation premises not prove that the defendant did not see the guilty of a breach may be summarily compartment of train or unauthorised intended for use by passengers or the relevant notice because of disability. removed. stay in crew compartment after request to public. Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile leave. Max penalty: $500 Penalty notice: $200 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $2000 Max penalty: $200 NUISANCE
s.141 - TO(PT) creating a disturbance cl.10 A person must not on any train, or A person must not while on any rail r.10(1) A person must not while in a s.43(5) GRA as below or a nuisance while on a railway, train or any SRA premises, wilfully interfere vehicle or the Corporation’s premises: train or at prescribed premises, commit a other passenger vehicle operated by a with the comfort or safety of other nuisance or act in a way that is likely to railway manager or operator, unless that persons. This includes spitting, using r.301(3)(b) commit any nuisance or act interfere with the comfort of, or disturb or person has a reasonable excuse. offensive language, behaving offensively in a way that is likely to interfere with the annoy, another person. and putting feet on seats. comfort of any other person;
Max Penalty: $1500 Penalty notice: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $200 Max penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $500 A police officer may arrest without a By-law 15 No person shall spit upon the warrant if the officer reasonably believes r.316 spit at another person...; floor or any other part of any carriage, that an offence has just been committed vehicle, waiting-room or platform and that proceedings by way of complaint Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 and summons against the person would be Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $200 ineffective. Max penalty: $500 s.43(5) GRA Behaving in a violent or r.301(3)(a) use any indecent, insulting, r.10(4) A person must not, while in a offensive manner, or being drunk on any obscene, offensive, or threatening train or at prescribed premises: railway or railway premises. language or gesture; conduct himself or herself in an offensive manner; or use offensive language. Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Infringement notice penalty: $100 Max penalty: $600 Max penalty: $1000 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $500 r.301(4)(a) behave in a disorderly, indecent, offensive or riotous manner. s.56(5) PTA A person must not behave in a disorderly or offensive manner while in Infringement notice penalty: $100 or on a train or other public passenger Max penalty: $1500 vehicle. Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile? Max penalty: $1000
(6) A railway employee.. who has reason
PAGE 117 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. to believe that a person has committed an offence against s.56(5) may require that person to alight from the train. (7) It is an offence to fail to comply.
Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $1000 (8) A person must comply, otherwise a member of the police force or a person authorised by the Board to exercise powers may exercise reasonable force to remove the person from the train.
r.10(2) A person must not, without the permission of an authorised person, take r.301(3)(c) convey or attempt to convey into a train or onto prescribed premises an any goods, substances or things which are article that is likely to cause obstruction likely to be a source of annoyance or or annoyance. discomfort to any other person..... Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $1000 ALCOHOL
r.7 A person must not drink alcohol on a s.12 A person must not drink any r.317. A person must not drink r.12 A person must not consume alcohol By-law 91 & 22(1) A person shall not railway unless: the alcohol is supplied by intoxicating liquor on any train or State intoxicating liquor in any rail vehicle, or in a train or on prescribed premises. consume liquor on a train or railway the railway operator (for alcohol drunk on Rail Authority (SRA) premises, unless the on the Corporation’s premises, unless it premises except in a place set aside for rolling stock) or otherwise by the railway liquor is supplied on the train or premises is purchased from, and is consumed at a that purpose when travelling on a train manager; the person drinks it at a place... with the permission of the SRA. place authorised by the Corporation for outside the metropolitan area. Other than set aside for drinking it. that purpose. for suburban travel, the unauthorised sale and transportation of liquor on a train is Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if an offence Infringement Notice Penalty; $60. Infringement Notice Penalty: $200 Max penalty: $500 Infringement notice penalty: $50 Max Penalty: $750 Max Penalty: $1000 Max penalty: $200 ANIMALS
r.8 A person must not allow an animal s.34 A person must not take an animal r.301(2)(b)-(d) A person must not: r.22 A person must not bring an animal By-law 52 No person take into or have in under the person’s control to go onto a onto a train (except under conditions drive, carry, ride or lead any animal on, on board a train without the permission of his charge in any carriage... , any dog or railway. imposed by SRA for the conveyance of or allow any animal to stray onto the an authorised person. This does not apply other animal, except under the conditions the animal). Corporations premises; or bring any dog to a guide dog or hearing dog for the conveyance of such dog or other
PAGE 118 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. This does not include a blind or aurally on to Corporation’s premises unless accompanying a person with a sight or animal. Any such dog or animal may be deficient person with a guide dog, a s.33 A person must not, without the properly harnessed...; or convey or hearing impairment. removed forthwith. person transporting an animal by rail or a authorised permission of an authorised attempt to convey any animal in a rail person crossing a railway with an animal person take a dog on any part of a station vehicle except in a compartment set aside by a railway crossing. unless that dog is under that persons for that purpose. direct physical control by means of a lead, chain or frame ( such as those to r.301(7) This does not include: a blind control guide dogs). or hearing impaired person accompanied by a guide dog; a person accompanied by a guide dog in training: or person carrying an animal or bird in an approved receptacle. Infringement Notice Penalty $120.00 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max Penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $200 R.12 NUISANCE BEHAVIOUR SMOKING
r12(1) A person must not smoke in cl.11 Smoking is prohibited on any train s.222(1) Transport Act 1983 - A person r.11 A person must not smoke in a train. by-law 13 Smoking in non-smoking rolling stock or on part of a railway where or enclosed SRA premises except where who smokes tobacco or any other compartments, carriages or vehicles a sign indicates that smoking is not signs indicate that smoking is permitted. substance: in or upon a carriage or part Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile allowed. of a carriage; or in upon any land or Max penalty:$500 Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 premises the property of the Public Max penalty:$200 Transport Corporation or any part of such r.32 A person who is in a passenger land or premises where a notice is vehicle or at prescribed premises must by-law 12 Smoking in any shed or displayed prohibiting smoking. obey any sign displayed in the vehicle or covered platform, or in any building. Any in or on the premises. person guilty of a breach of this by-law may be summarily removed. Penalty Notice: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Max penalty: $1000 Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $200 (whether removed or not) r.12(2) FOOD OR DRINK is not allowed to Refer to cl.10 Refer to r.301(3)(b) r.13 A person must not consume food or GR(FP) By-law 22 Consumption of food be consumed on rolling stock where a drink in a train after being requested not or drink (including liquor) while in a train sign indicates that consumption of food to do so by an authorised person. (suburban travel only) or and drink is not allowed. By-law 91 (travel outside the metropolitan area) . Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Infringement Notice penalty: $120 Max penalty: $500 Infringement notice penalty: $50 Max penalty:$1500 Max penalty: $200 r.12(3) A person must not occupy more Refer to cl.10 r.318 A person must not, without r.15 A person must not prevent or deter
PAGE 119 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. than one seat of rolling stock; reasonable excuse, prevent another person another person from occupying an from occupying a seat... by placing an occupied seat in a passenger vehicle or at article or part of their body on that seat prescribed premises. and refuse to move that article or part of their body when asked. Infringement Notice penalty: $120 Infringement Notice Penalty: $25 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500 r.12(3) A person must not put their feet cl.10 A person must not on any train or s.222(3)(e) TA A person must not, r.14 A person must not stand on, or place by-law 14 Placing feet on seats in any (whether or not with shoes) on a seat of SRA premises wilfully interfere with without reasonable excuse, place his/her a foot on or against, a seat in a train or at carriage rolling stock. the comfort or safety of other persons. feet on any part of the carriage other than other railway premises. Under cl.10(2)(a), this includes putting the floor or on any furniture of the feet on seats. Corporation unless specifically designed for the placing of the feet. Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Penalty notice: $100 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Infringement Notice Penalty: $50 Max penalty:$1500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $200 r.12(5) A person must not put into the cl.10 as above Refer to r.301(3)(b) Refer to r.16 or r.17 aisles anything which is likely to cause an obstruction or injury to someone.
Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Max penalty:$1500 cl 24 A person must not sit on/ obstruct r.16 A person must not occupy a a stairway at a station. stairway, step, entrance platform or exit Penalty notice: $100 platform. Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile cl.25 A person must not ride on an Max penalty: $500. escalator handrail, travel down on up escalator/ up down escalator or interfere r.17 A person must not obstruct the with escalator/lift/working of escalator/lift entrance or exit of passengers from a without reasonable excuse. passenger vehicle, or refuse to move, Penalty: $100 when requested to do so by an authorised person. cl.26 A person must not remove SRA property from any train or SRA premises Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile or RAC ( Rail Access Corporation) max penalty: $500 premises. Penalty notice: $100 r.12(6)A person on railway must not cl.13 A person must not carry on r.325 A person must not on any rail or r.36 A person must not, without the By-law 40 No person unless authorised, publicly sell anything, seek business or unauthorised commercial activity on road vehicle or Corporation premises: permission of the Board or shall solicit custom or hire in or upon any conduct a survey. either train or SRA premises. Commercial hawk, sell, hire, offer or expose for sale or TransAdelaide: sell or hire or offer for carriage, vehicle, or premises of the
PAGE 120 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. activity means sale or hire of anything; for hire any articles or goods....; tout, sale or hire, an article or thing in a train Commissioner. Any person guilty of such touting or soliciting for custom, hire or solicit or ply for custom, hire or or on railway premises; or distribute a breach may be removed. employment; distribution of handbills; employment...; distribute hand bills; handbills to, or solicit money from, soliciting of money (busking or solicit money or goods; or busk. another person in a train or on railway Max penalty: $200 otherwise). premises. Max penalty: $1500 Infringement Notice Penalty : $100 Max Penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500 s.48(1) GRA Affix any placard or bill on Infringement Notice Penalty: $120 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile railway property or sells or attempts to sell any articles without authorisation r.301(1)(a) A person must not gamble Max penalty: $200 unless the vehicle or premises is licenced Infringement notice penalty: $50 for gambling
Max penalty: $500 r.12(7) A person on a railway must not cl.10 as above r.301(1)(b) A person must not while in r.10(3) A person must not, without the r.47 as above play a musical instrument or operate or on any rail vehicle or the Corporation’s permission of an authorised person, play a sound equipment unless earphones are premises, operate or play any musical musical instrument, radio, tape player or attached and the sound level from the instrument, radio, tape player or any other instrument or device capable of earphones is not likely to be a nuisance instrument/device capable of emitting emitting sound while in a train or at sound, unless the sound is contained by prescribed premises ( and if a person uses the use of headphones. earphones or headphones on a device, the person must ensure that he/she does not allow any sound... to disturb or annoy another person) Max Penalty: $1500 Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500 Penalty Infringement Notice:$120 Infringement Notice Penalty: $100 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile LOITERING By-law 36 No person shall remain on railway premises for more than 30 minutes after the arrival of the train by which he travelled or remain on railway premises for more than 1hour before the advertised departure of a train.
At junction stations, passengers may remain on the station until the departure of the next connecting train, providing departure is within 2hrs. Platform tickets entitle persons to remain on the railway for 30 minutes.
Any person who refuses or neglects to quit the railway when required by any
PAGE 121 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
QUEENSLAND - TRANSPORT NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT VICTORIA - CRIMES ACT 1958; SOUTH AUSTRALIA- PASSENGER WESTERN AUSTRALIA- INFRASTRUCTURE (RAIL) REGULATION 1900: TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT ACT 1983 (TA); TRANSPORT ACT 1994 (PTA); GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT 1904 1996: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE (RAILWAY OFFENCES) REGULATION TRANSPORT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT (REGULAR (GRA) ; RAILWAYS BY-LAWS; ACT (TIA): CRIMINAL CODE 1994 (NB: MAX PENALTY FOR ALL CORPORATION) REGULATIONS 1994 PASSENGER SERVICE; CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES: $200) (PTCR) PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS 1994 -FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPIATION FEES, A JUVENILE IS AGED 15,16 & 17 YRS. railway officer or servant, may be summarily removed by any railway employee. INP: $50 Max penalty: $200 MISCELLANEOUS r.326 If a child, under the age of 10 r.37 If a child is accompanied by an adult years, is accompanied by an adult in a rail in a rail vehicle or on the premises, that vehicle or on the Corporation’s premises, adult must take reasonable steps to the adult must take all reasonable steps to prevent the child from acting contrary to prevent the child from acting contrary to the regulations. the regulations. Infringement Notice Penalty: $25 Expiation fee: $100 or $50 if juvenile Max penalty: $500 Max penalty: $500
PAGE 122 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX E PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 123 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX F PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX F — ASSAULTS AGAINST PASSENGERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS FROM CITYTRAIN STATION AND ENVIRONS REPORTED TO POLICE, 1.7.94 - 31.12.97
ASSAULTS CAR THEFT STATIONS 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 97 97 Albion 1 2 0 0 3 21 13 2 0 36 Alderley 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 4 2 18 Altandi 4 3 6 2 15 25 23 16 1 65 Auchenflower 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 6 Bald Hills 2 0 1 3 6 15 13 1 1 30 Banoon 0 1 1 0 2 9 11 1 11 32 Banyo 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 Beenleigh 2 3 2 0 7 44 43 20 11 118 Beerwah 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 Bethania 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 10 0 26 Birkdale 4 2 2 0 8 7 7 5 5 24 Boondall 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 4 Booval 0 0 1 0 1 17 15 2 10 44 Bowen Hills 1 0 3 0 4 3 2 3 0 8 Bray Park 4 1 1 0 6 8 13 10 4 35 Brunswick Street 2 3 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 Bundamba 2 4 2 0 8 4 4 5 4 17 Buranda 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 1 1 3 Burpengary 3 0 0 2 5 14 23 10 2 49 Caboolture 3 6 2 4 15 25 22 16 2 65 Cannon Hill 1 5 4 0 10 4 7 4 2 17 Carseldine 0 0 1 0 1 13 9 5 2 29 Central 7 9 7 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmer 2 1 0 0 3 6 4 3 3 16 Clayfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Cleveland 3 0 1 0 4 3 4 1 2 10 Coomera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Coopers Plains 1 1 0 2 4 12 12 20 0 44 Coorparoo 1 0 2 0 3 4 3 5 0 12 Corinda 3 0 1 1 5 13 6 3 6 28 Dakabin 1 3 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 1 Darra 3 1 4 0 8 37 21 16 10 84 Deagon 0 0 3 1 4 3 0 1 0 4 Dinmore 3 0 2 0 5 8 3 7 3 21 Dutton Park 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 6 Eagle Junction 0 4 4 0 8 10 19 4 2 35 East Ipswich 3 1 4 0 8 27 23 10 4 64 Ebbw Vale 0 2 0 1 3 9 7 2 1 19
PAGE 124 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX F PASSENGER SECURITY
ASSAULTS CAR THEFT STATIONS 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 97 97 Eden’s Landing 0 0 1 0 1 8 8 4 1 21 Elimbah 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 Enoggera 0 0 1 0 1 9 5 5 0 19 Fairfield 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 4 Ferny Grove 6 2 0 0 8 0 6 0 0 6 Fruitgrove 0 0 1 2 3 10 8 0 6 24 Gailes 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 Gaythorne 0 5 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 13 Geebung 1 1 1 0 3 4 6 0 4 14 Glass House Mts. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Goodna 3 4 0 0 7 49 14 4 8 75 Graceville 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 5 Grovely 0 0 0 1 1 9 14 9 2 34 Gympie Central 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Helensvale 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 5 1 6 Hemmant 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Holmview 0 0 1 0 1 6 6 0 0 12 Indooroopilly 3 3 3 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 Ipswich 6 1 0 1 8 13 6 4 2 25 Keperra 3 1 0 1 5 3 4 2 0 9 Kingston 1 12 2 2 17 26 32 10 2 70 Kuraby 1 1 1 0 3 26 33 21 2 82 Landsborough 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 Lawnton 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 6 2 26 Lindum 2 1 1 4 8 1 4 7 0 12 Loganlea 2 2 1 2 7 42 54 28 8 132 Lota 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 Manly 6 0 3 0 9 4 6 2 0 12 Milton 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mitchelton 3 2 1 0 6 20 8 6 0 34 Morayfield 1 2 1 1 5 7 9 10 2 28 Morningside 1 4 4 0 9 14 21 4 1 40 Murarrie 0 0 0 2 2 0 9 5 1 15 Nambour 1 1 1 1 4 6 3 2 7 18 Narangba 0 0 0 1 1 9 12 12 6 39 Nerang 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Newmarket 1 1 2 0 4 1 1 2 1 5 Norman Park 1 0 1 0 2 8 11 4 6 29 North Boondall 0 1 0 1 2 6 13 5 0 24 Northgate 4 1 1 1 7 23 21 5 2 51 Nudgee 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 Nundah 2 2 6 0 10 6 5 3 1 15 Ormeau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ormiston 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 1 10 Oxford park 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Oxley 15 4 8 1 28 21 10 6 4 41 Park Road 0 5 1 2 8 5 2 0 1 8 Petrie 0 0 1 1 2 28 10 12 2 52 Redbank 0 4 2 0 6 32 23 11 6 72 Riverview 1 0 4 0 5 2 0 4 0 6
PAGE 125 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX F PASSENGER SECURITY
ASSAULTS CAR THEFT STATIONS 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 94/95 95/96 96/97 End TOTAL 97 97 Rocklea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Roma Street 4 2 3 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 Rosewood 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Runcorn 4 0 0 0 4 11 15 12 4 42 Salisbury 0 0 5 2 7 6 1 5 3 15 Sandgate 0 3 3 0 6 13 11 9 3 36 Sherwood 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Shorncliffe 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 South Brisbane 3 1 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Strathpine 1 1 0 0 2 8 6 9 2 25 Sunnybank 0 1 0 0 1 32 18 17 3 70 Sunshine 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Taringa 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 6 Thomas Street 0 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Thorneside 0 0 3 0 3 0 5 5 1 11 Toombul 8 2 0 1 11 13 9 7 2 31 Toowong 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 5 Trinder Park 1 0 0 1 2 21 27 26 11 85 Virginia 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Vulture Street 8 2 2 1 13 0 1 0 0 1 Wacol 2 2 1 1 6 36 17 24 10 87 Walloon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Wellington Point 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 7 1 15 Wilston 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 4 0 17 Windsor 3 0 0 0 3 14 4 3 1 22 Woodridge 5 4 1 0 10 14 30 30 8 82 Wooloowin 1 1 2 0 4 18 15 4 3 40 Wulkuraka 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Wynnum 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 Wynnum Central 1 0 7 1 9 1 2 2 2 7 Wynnum North 3 1 1 0 5 4 1 4 1 10 Yeerongpilly 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 Yeronga 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 7 0 17 Zillmere 4 2 0 1 7 11 7 5 1 24 Between Stations* 4 4 3 0 11 TOTAL 176 156 147 66 545 1011 912 1923 239 2750
Note *Denotes assaults which have been reported by police as occurring between stations. The committee notes that there is no set protocol for recording in-transit assaults, and that other cases may have been recorded against station locations.
PAGE 126 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX F PASSENGER SECURITY
PAGE 127 BRISBANE’S CITYTRAIN NETWORK - PART TWO APPENDIX G PASSENGER SECURITY
APPENDIX G — CITYTRAIN NETWORK MAP
PAGE 128 TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD 48TH PARLIAMENT - 2ND SESSION
MEETING DATE JOHN TERRY BOB JOHN ROB BILL
GOSS SULLIVAN DOLLIN HEGARTY MITCHELL NUNN 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 June 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 June 1996 4 4 4 4 4 8 9 July 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 July 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 July 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 August 1996 4 4 4 4 4 8 7 August 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 September 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 October 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 29 October 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 12 November 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 13 November 1996 4 4 4 8 4 4 14 November 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 27 November 1996 4 4 8 4 4 4 28 November 1996 4 4 8 4 4 4 3 December 1996 4 4 8 4 4 4 5 December 1996 4 8 4 4 8 4 11 December 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 January 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 18 March 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 20 March 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 March 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 30 April 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 May 1997 4 4 8 4 4 4 8 May 1997 4 4 8 4 4 4 9 May 1997
PAGE 129 MEETING DATE JOHN TERRY BOB JOHN ROB BILL
GOSS SULLIVAN DOLLIN HEGARTY MITCHELL NUNN 4 4 4 4 4 8 28 May 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 July 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 July 1997 4 4 4 4 8 4 16 July 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 19 August 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 26 August 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 October 1997 4 4 8 4 4 4 9 October 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 October 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 30 October 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 November 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 18 November 1997* 4 4 4 4 4 4 19 November 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 November 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 26 November 1997 4 4 4 8 4 4 27 November 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 December 1997 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 March 1998 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 March 1998 4 4 4 4 4 4 17 March 1998 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 April 1998 4 4 4 4 4 4 21 April 1998
Note: Reported in accordance with Standing Order 198 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly 1995.
PAGE 130 REPORTS OF THE TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE
Number Title Tabling date 1. Annual Report for the period 10 May 1990 to 30 June 1990 5 September 1990 2. The need for some form of compulsory periodic inspections of 4 December 1990 passenger vehicles as an effective means of reducing road crashes and the severity of associated injuries, and the need to improve the standards of motor vehicle repairs as a means of improving vehicle and road safety 3. Road Safety Education AND Traffic Law Enforcement 4 September 1991 4. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991 2 October 1991 5. Bicycle Safety 28 November 1991 6. Achieving High Levels of Compliance with Road Safety Laws - a 18 March 1992 review of road user behaviour modification 7. Road Environment and Traffic Engineering 28 April 1992 8. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1992 25 August 1992 9. Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety 15 July 1993 10. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993 18 November 1993 11. The Safety and Economic Implications of Permitting Standees on 18 November 1993 Urban and Non-Urban Bus Services 12. Local Area Traffic Management 28 April 1994 13. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994 27 October 1994 14. The Desirability of Requiring Compulsory Third Party Insurance 22 November 1994 Cover for Boats and Trailers 15. Speed Cameras: Should They Be Used in Queensland? 24 November 1994 16. Report on Driver Training and Licensing 3 April 1996 17. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996 4 September 1996 18. Queensland’s Road Toll : An Overview 8 December 1996 19. Queensland’s Road Toll : Drink Driving (Part 1) 8 December 1996 20. Unsecured Loads 16 May 1997 21. Annual Report for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997 18 November 1997 22. Compulsory BAC Testing 12 December 1997 23. Brisbane’s Citytrain Network - Part One - Safety of the Rail 15 December 1997 System and Infrastructure
Reports are available from the Committee Secretariat:
Address: Parliament House Internet: www.parliament.qld.gov.au George Street Email [email protected] BRISBANE QLD 4101 Telephone: (07) 3406 7908 Fax: (07) 3406 7262
PAGE 131 PAGE 132