Police Officers in the Australian state of Victoria could charge intoxicated people with more serious charges as the state moves to decriminalise public drunkenness in November.
The potential charges may result from an unintended consequence of the public drunkenness laws, where police officers could charge intoxicated persons with more serious crimes when the public drunkenness offence isn’t an option.
Speaking at the Yoorrook Justice Commission on May 5, Victoria’s Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said the decision to not give police officers replacement powers was influenced by the experience of other states, where she said residual powers meant decriminalisation didn’t bring about cultural change.
“We hope there’s not the consequences of up-charging,” Symes said.
“We don’t want to see that happen, and that’s an ongoing conversation with the police and the agencies on the ground and, indeed, people with lived experience.”
This also includes riding a bicycle while drunk, as well as “behaving in a riotous or disorderly manner while drunk in a public place.”
Instead, public drunkenness will be treated as a medical issue where drunk people will be given access to outreach services such as sobering-up centres.
Public Drunkenness Laws Expected to Provide Coverage for Majority of Indigenous Victorians
The Andrews government moved to decriminalise public drunkenness at the start of a 2019 coronial inquest into the death of Tanya Day, an Indigenous Yorta Yorta woman, after she was held in police custody in 2017 on a charge of public drunkenness.“The department acknowledges the First Peoples who have passed in custody or while in the state’s care and notes that the contribution that a lack of access to health services or services of inadequate quality may have impacted on community,” the health department said to the commission.
“The department apologises to the families of people who did not receive a health-based response to public intoxication, which is, at its core, a health issue.”
The new response to the health-led public drunkenness laws is expected to provide coverage to 82 percent of Victoria’s Indigenous peoples, while the department said that there would be residual health risks for the remaining 18 percent.
Victorian Department of Health’s Katherine Whetton told the commission that the delay in lifting public drunkenness laws risked more Aboriginal deaths in custody.
Meanwhile, the CEO of the Victoria Police Association, Wayne Gatt, has slammed the new laws saying that the changes would provide little leeway for officers to act, especially in regional areas.
“From here on, if a person is found drunk in public and causing a nuisance or compromising the safety of those around them, police can’t deal with them,” Gatt said.
“Without police and other resources, ambulance officers will primarily shoulder this burden.”
Public Drunkenness an ‘Entrenched Social Issue’: Study
In a 2020 study by Pennay et al., researchers found that changes to public drunkenness laws across local and international jurisdictions have been “tokenistic in practice.”“Local and international experiences suggest that decriminalising public drunkenness often does not change the practice of dealing with the intoxicated person,” the study states.
“That is, with residents and/or traders still believing the intoxicated person should be removed from sight, the handling of the drunk person and the provision of a space to sober up has often remained the responsibility of the police.”
Researchers found that the repeal of public drunkenness laws—which often have left police with fewer powers to address relevant health and safety issues—has resulted in the increased use of other discretionary powers.
The researchers also reasoned that health-led responses—such as adopting sobering-up centres, managed alcohol programs (MAPs) and alcohol intoxication management services (AIMS)—did not deal with the political issue at hand.
“[D]runkenness is an entrenched social issue for which there is no easy solution,” Pennay et al. state.
“The person who is considered drunk in public will still be moved out of public sight, most often against their wishes, and most likely by first responders. Moving from a criminalisation to a health-based model does little to address this reality.”
Researchers added that the optional or mandatory nature of sobering-up centres and its effects are not well covered in the literature.
“With regards to public drunkenness, ethical principles would indicate that service use should be optional, and this is supported by research on compulsory drug treatment.
“However, how to maximise the safety of the individual who chooses to leave—and of those around them—if there is no safe place for the individual to be taken (e.g. if family or friends cannot be reached) is a question without an obvious solution.”
Researchers said that adequate funding and ongoing provision of sufficient health-based services are needed, along with a clear plan for training and empowering first responders where there is no safe, easily accessible place for them to take intoxicated individuals.
“However, the challenge for Victoria, and for governments everywhere, is to put measures in place that ensure the repeal of public drunkenness laws do not simply result in an increase in people being charged with open container laws, or more serious public disorder crimes.”
