July 28, 2025 • 19 mins
No illegal substances were discovered in more than 86% of strip searches conducted by NSW Police over the last decade. That’s according to a new report by the Redfern Legal Centre, which analysed data from thousands of searches between 2014 and 2023.
It comes amid an ongoing legal battle in the state, where a class action alleging unlawful strip searches by NSW Police is continuing in the Supreme Court.
Today, we’ll take a closer look at this new data, the legal requirements around strip searchers and the ongoing legal challenge.
Hosts: Emma Gillespie and Sam Koslowski
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is this is the Daily This is
the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense. Good morning
and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday, the twenty
ninth of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
No illegal substances were discovered in more than eighty six
percent of strip searches conducted by New South Wales Police
over the last decade. That's according to a new report
by the Redfern Legal Center, which analyzed data from thousands
of searches between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty three. Now
this comes amid an ongoing legal battle in the state,
(00:43):
where a class action alleging unlawful strip searchers by New
South Wales Police is continuing in the Supreme Court. Today
we are going to take a closer look at this
new data, the legal requirements around strip searches and the
ongoing legal challenge. But before we get into it, here
is a quick message from.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Today's sponsor, So Emma. Today we're talking about this new
report which has found only around thirteen percent of police
strip searches in New South Wales actually resulted in the
discovery of Anlysta's substance. I want to get into this
darta with you. Before we get there, though, can you
walk me through what actually constitutes a strip search under
(01:23):
New south Wales law, because I think that's really important
to set up exactly what type of search we're talking
about here before we start looking at how many of
them result in a finding of alicity.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I should note that these laws do
differ state to state, but there are some common threads,
so New South Wales kind of represents what most of
the country does or what its laws say about strip searches.
So in New South Wales there are actually two types
of searches that police can conduct. The first is a
general search. Now, that's where officers might ask you to
(01:54):
remove out of clothing like jacket, shoes, hat, gloves, but
they can't require you to remove all your clothes, so
that is a general search, and a strip search, of course,
indicated by the name, goes much further. So under New
South Wales's law, it's defined as searching a person that
may include requiring them to remove all of their clothes
and examining their body, but not bodied cavities. So even
(02:17):
if police just ask you to say, pull out your pants, waistband,
or to lift your shirt so they can look at
your stomach. That's legally considered a strip search.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
And there's obviously protections in the law that are meant
to qualify why police would need to perform a strip search.
What are those requirements?
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So under New South Wales's law, it's a pretty high
threshold to be met. So for a strip search outside
of a police station, the officer must suspect on reasonable
grounds that the search is necessary and that the seriousness
and urgency of the circumstances make it necessary at that location.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So let's break that down a bit. So basically what
they're saying there is that within police station the strip
search ability is a bit more wide ranging. Outside of
a police station, there needs to be not only a
reason why the search is necessary, but also why can't
wait until you get inside a police station.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Exactly, so exceptional circumstances only because a police station has
the necessary privacy and set up for searches to be
conducted privately, whereas if it's happening outside, out and about,
there has to be somewhere for a person to be searched.
The law also requires that strip searches be conducted in
the least invasive way possible and in a place that
(03:35):
provides reasonable privacy as I mentioned.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Okay, so that's what constitutes a strip search and the
conditions in which they can be performed in New South Wales.
Redferne Legal Center has now taken data from the last
ten years or so from New South Wales Police. What
does that data show us?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
So Redferne Legal Center analyzed eighty two thousand, four hundred
and seventy one strip searches. That's how many any strip
searches New South Wales Police conducted between twenty fourteen and
twenty twenty three, the latest available data on this, So
that's an average of more than eighty two hundred per year.
But the key finding is that in eighty six point
(04:12):
five percent of all searches, no illicit substance or no
illicit materials were found. So basically eighty six point five
percent of searches, or about seventy one thousand people, according
to Redferne Legal Center, were subjected to an invasive search
despite having done nothing wrong In terms of criminal convictions
(04:35):
that have come from these searchers. According to the report,
ten percent of searches resulted in a drug possession charge,
two percent in a drug supply charge, which is a
more serious conviction. But when you look at actual rates
of convictions, so not just someone being charged, but someone
being prosecuted and convicted of an offense, that's lower. That's
(04:55):
about six percent for possession and one point four percent
for drug supply.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
The other big aspects to drug searchers that we're all
very familiar with, especially those of us who frequent music
festivals and live events, is drug detection dogs. What role
do drug detection dogs play in the findings in the data?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
This is really interesting. So drug detection dogs sniffer dogs
as we would call them, are a significant factor when
it comes to the scale of the searchers. So the
data shows that around one in ten strip searches over
the reporting period were because of a drug detection dog,
So one in ten total search has happened essentially because
a sniffer dog indicated to police that they might be
(05:38):
looking at a person of interest.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And if you think back to those twoe requirements of
the law, that then satisfies that first requirement that there's
reasonable suspicion that there's some reason why the police would
want to perform a strip search.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yes, so while these made up eight percent of all
strip searchers, there was actually a higher link to illicit
drugs being discovered and sniffer dog's searchers compared to the
the reasons that a search would be conducted. So forty
percent of searches because of sniffer dogs were actually found
to have illicit substances. That's compared to overall searchers, where
(06:11):
illicit substances were found in fourteen percent of all searches.
Even though forty percent might sound high, advocates have called
into question the accuracy of dogs, considering that still means,
you know, six out of ten people were falsely identified
by a drug dog, they were strip searched and then
found not to be carrying anything illegal, So there are
(06:31):
question marks over kind of the efficacy and the means
of these searchers based on sniffer dogs. For these kinds
of searches, the conviction rates were similar to general searches,
So ten percent of people strip searched because of a
sniffer dog were found with substances and subsequently convicted. So
the New South I Was Police's own procedures state that
(06:53):
a drug dog indication alone doesn't provide legal grounds.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
For a search.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Interesting, officers are supposed to conduct further investigations first, so
that looks like questioning a person, maybe conducting general searchers
a bag search, padding them down. So there has to
be a few steps before a search legally passes that
threshold where a person can be taken into a private
room and asked to take their clothes off.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
So let's zoom out a bit now and kind of
think about this in terms of the procedure and what
these results mean. Am I right in thinking that strip
searchers are basically meant to be this last resort and instead,
according to the startup, they may have become more routine
rather than the exception.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yeah, this is exactly what legal experts are arguing. They're
saying that strip searchers have become part of routine policing
rather than, as you've alluded to, their sam being reserved
for serious circumstances and particularly at music festivals and also
on public transports. So RLC say the evidence of this
is based on a spike in strip searches that they
(07:56):
have seen or that were recorded between twenty sixteen and
twenty eighteen. The peaky is saw over fourteen thousand strip
searches annually. That's based on the average annual search being
about eight thousand. And interestingly, this all coincides with a
quota system that New South Wales Police had in place,
so they set targets for two hundred and forty one
(08:19):
thousand personal searches across the state over a two year
period and that's when we did see a spike in
strip searches.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
I want to pick up one thing you mentioned just before,
you said that there had been increased amount of strip
searches at train stations and on public transport. Tell me
a bit more about that and what that tells us
about the changing way that police are administering these searches
across the state. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
I think it's interesting because when we hear about strip searches,
when we think sniffer dogs. I don't know about you,
but I immediately imagine music festivals because that's where I've
seen it happen the most, and.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
It's where there's the most media focus.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Exactly, there's the media focus, there's a visibility. But data
released in October last year showed that since twenty sixteen,
New South Wales Police conducted eight hundred and eighty three
strip searchers at train stations, and this led RLC red
Ferone Legal Center to flag these concerns about the public
nature of train stations and whether or not it's appropriate
(09:14):
to be conducting so many strip searchers in a place
like a station that is so public, especially when the
law requires searches to be conducted with this idea of
reasonable privacy. So sometimes at train stations police will set
up makeshift curtains, There'll be structures on train platforms where
the searchers can be conducted behind those curtains. But for
(09:35):
Samantha Lee, who is a supervising solicitor at RLC, this
is inadequate. She said, there's no privacy at a train station.
Sometimes police set up those structures, but common sense tells
you this is inadequate. Those are her words, and the
data also shows that these searchers disproportionately target First Nations people.
So nine percent of train station searches are of First
(09:58):
Nations people right First Nations people in New South Wales
making up three point four percent of the state's population. Additionally,
there are concerns about underage searchers, so sixty six searches
in that report involved children age ten to seventeen, So
there are a whole lot of questions over how these
searches are being conducted, but also who are the subjects
(10:19):
of these searchers.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Why don't we have a think about the way in
which you should or can react if you are pulled
aside for a strip search by a New South Wales police.
We know that a lot of our audience are young
Australians who we hope go to live music and support
their great live music economy, and that's obviously an overlap
to where a lot of these searches happen. Yeah, so
what's legal experts say? Are your rights and how you
(10:43):
should behave should this happen to you?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, I mean we know that this has happened to
at least more than eight thousand people every year in
New South Wales for the last ten years. So the
most important thing to know is that you do have
the right to say no. The best thing that you
can say is I do not consent to this, So
that's what legal experts say. You can ask officers to
turn on their body worn cameras and to repeat that
(11:06):
they've done that so it's recorded. You can ask them
to note down your refusal or your non consent in
their notebook. Officers always carry those notebooks around. If you
have a friend with you, experts suggest that maybe it's
good to have that person film the interaction, not up close,
but to move a safe distance away and film the interaction.
(11:26):
But for your own safety, legal experts do generally advise
being cooperative, you know, rather than physically resisting, unless you're
prepared to go into custody and be taken to a
police station. That cooperating is usually the smoother path, the
path of least resistance. The key is making sure that
if you don't consent, that you're being really clear about
(11:47):
that and that that is documented, because that will become
really important evidence if you later want to challenge the
legality of a search. Now, for people under eighteen, police
have to call a parent or guardian before conducting a
strip search on a person age ten to seventeen, so
there are some gray areas if police claim the search
is urgent, but general all the thumb though, is that
(12:08):
parental consent must be sought before anyone under eighteen can
be searched.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
This is a really dynamic area of the law and
it's constantly in the headlines for the way in which
has evolved over the years. And right now there's this
major class action challenging these practices in New South Wales.
What's the latest with that case, because that's quite a
significant development, right.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, this is a really interesting one. So Red Ferm
Legal Center and Slater and Gordon, the law firm, launched
this action in twenty twenty two on behalf of thousands
of people who said they were strip searched at New
South Wales music festivals between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty two.
Those proceedings began in May this year. They have since concluded,
but a decision hasn't been handed down yet, so the
(12:52):
law firm Slater and Gordon said it could be several
months before we hear what that decision is, but those
proceedings have wrapped up for now.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And just quickly run me through the actual facts in
this case.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, So the lead plaintiff is Raya Meredith. She was
strip searched at Splendor in twenty eighteen Splender in the Grass,
the Byron Bay Music festival. Raya alleges she was taken
to a makeshift search area that did not have adequate privacy,
that she was asked to remove all her clothes, bend
over naked, remove her tampon so officers could inspect it.
No drugs were found, no wrongdoing was found there. And
(13:26):
the class action alleges that RYA's search and thousands of
others like it were unfair and constitute essentially assault by
police as well as false imprisonment relating to the forced searchers.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
So pretty serious allegation.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Very serious allegations against police. And there are over three
thousand people who have registered in the class action, so
three thousand people who allege wrongdoing in a strip search
with New South Wales police. Now, the RLC said that
it's an important step in holding police accountable for what
they called degrading strip searches, and Slater and Gordon, the
lawyers representing this class action, said that strip searches in
(14:03):
New South Wales have increased over twentyfold in just over
a decade. These lawyers called them traumatic, invasive, harmful and
that they should only be used as a last resort.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
People who have been unlawfully searched have a right to
compensation for what has happened to them.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Why don't we go to the police response here. What
have New south Wales Police said to not only the
lawsuit but to all of this new data.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yes, so broadly police defend their practices regarding the train
station data that was shared last year. A New South
Wales Police spokesperson basically said searchers are only conducted if
they are absolutely necessary based on the suspicions of an officer,
that those suspicions meet that threshold, and that there's seriousness
and urgency of the circumstances that make the strip search
(14:46):
necessary out of a police station. But in terms of
this class action we've seen a bit of a backflip
from police. So New south Wales Police said that they
would argue that the officer involved in the search was
authorized to conduct that search on the plaintiff had re
grounds to do so, and that the decision to do
a search was based on a positive indication that there
was prohibited substance in the airspace around the plaintiff, the
(15:10):
plaintiff's admission to smoking cannabis earlier that day, and police
observations of her demeanor, physical appearance and body language. But
in the days leading up to the trial actually beginning,
officials conceded that there was no lawful basis to strip
search the lead plaintiff, and court documents show essentially a
backflip that police withdrew their witnesses and that changed the
(15:32):
whole scope of the claim.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So there's no final result in that case yet, but
some pretty dramatic leg developments there. To end off this conversation,
why don't we take a big zoom out and look
at all of this data that you've run us through
today from the Redferne Legal Center. Give me a sense
of what you think the broader implications of all of
this are from a policy perspective. Yea, what do we
(15:54):
actually do with these findings now?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Yeah, Well, basically we have these findings that suggest this
disconnect between the law and what is happening in practice
from police. There's also this concern about the impact on
vulnerable communities, and there's this public health perspective as well
about harm reduction. So harm reduction experts argue that these
practices actually make drug use more dangerous. So at music festivals,
(16:18):
we've heard time and time again that there are concerns
about the presence of a sniffer dog that that might
make people take all their drugs at once and potentially
the health implications of that. There's this sort of preloading
or panic consumption to avoid detection. So experts and URLLC
have made several key recommendations. They want to end strip
searches based on the suspicion of minor drug possession. They
(16:40):
want to end all strip searches of children under eighteen,
and they want to cease the use of drug dogs
at festivals and events. They're also calling the mandatory annual
data so that there is more transparency in the reporting
of how strip search powers are being used, and for
the expansion of harm reduction programs as a more effective
(17:00):
alternative to these strip search approaches.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
There's always a lot of reform discussions that happen around
these sorts of issues. So right now, though police do
deploy drug sniffer dogs at music festivals, and this tension
between law enforcement and public health recommendations continues to evolve.
We've seen the surge in the number of testing facilities
now at festivals and the normalization especially in Queensland and
(17:26):
Victoria and increasingly as well in New South Wales of them.
But I think really the broader conversation here and what
I heard from that data from the Red Ferd and
Legal Center. Is that disconnects you were speaking about between
the guidelines and what the law says, and that line
you mentioned about the targets set on searching and we
(17:48):
need to make sure for the good people in our
New South Wales police force that there's a coherence between
what they're told to do on the shift and what
the law describes.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, exactly, And I mean, look, there has been some
progress or some reform in New South Wales. There was
a drug summit last year, pill testing trials have rolled
out in the state. Despite Premier Chris Mins kind of
taking a cautious approach to drug policy reform. There was
an early drug diversion initiative that was rolled out last
year that essentially now allows people caught with small amounts
(18:21):
of drugs in New South Wales to pay a fine
or complete a program instead of being criminally convicted. That
sort of initiative is really in its early stages, in
its infancy. We're not really sure the impact that that
has had yet in this space, but it is a
step in what legal experts describe as the right direction.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
A really complex issue with significant implications for civil liberties
and police practice in New South Wales, but at the
same time quite rapid progress as well. Emma, thank you
so much for running us through that. Thank you, and
thank you for joining us on the Daily os this morning.
We're going to be back in your ears with some
headlines later today. Until then, have a great day. My
(19:00):
name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung
Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torrestrate island
and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples
of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is this is the Daily This is
the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense. Good morning
and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday, the twenty
ninth of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
No illegal substances were discovered in more than eighty six
percent of strip searches conducted by New South Wales Police
over the last decade. That's according to a new report
by the Redfern Legal Center, which analyzed data from thousands
of searches between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty three. Now
this comes amid an ongoing legal battle in the state,
(00:43):
where a class action alleging unlawful strip searchers by New
South Wales Police is continuing in the Supreme Court. Today
we are going to take a closer look at this
new data, the legal requirements around strip searches and the
ongoing legal challenge. But before we get into it, here
is a quick message from.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Today's sponsor, So Emma. Today we're talking about this new
report which has found only around thirteen percent of police
strip searches in New South Wales actually resulted in the
discovery of Anlysta's substance. I want to get into this
darta with you. Before we get there, though, can you
walk me through what actually constitutes a strip search under
(01:23):
New south Wales law, because I think that's really important
to set up exactly what type of search we're talking
about here before we start looking at how many of
them result in a finding of alicity.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I should note that these laws do
differ state to state, but there are some common threads,
so New South Wales kind of represents what most of
the country does or what its laws say about strip searches.
So in New South Wales there are actually two types
of searches that police can conduct. The first is a
general search. Now, that's where officers might ask you to
(01:54):
remove out of clothing like jacket, shoes, hat, gloves, but
they can't require you to remove all your clothes, so
that is a general search, and a strip search, of course,
indicated by the name, goes much further. So under New
South Wales's law, it's defined as searching a person that
may include requiring them to remove all of their clothes
and examining their body, but not bodied cavities. So even
(02:17):
if police just ask you to say, pull out your pants, waistband,
or to lift your shirt so they can look at
your stomach. That's legally considered a strip search.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
And there's obviously protections in the law that are meant
to qualify why police would need to perform a strip search.
What are those requirements?
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So under New South Wales's law, it's a pretty high
threshold to be met. So for a strip search outside
of a police station, the officer must suspect on reasonable
grounds that the search is necessary and that the seriousness
and urgency of the circumstances make it necessary at that location.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So let's break that down a bit. So basically what
they're saying there is that within police station the strip
search ability is a bit more wide ranging. Outside of
a police station, there needs to be not only a
reason why the search is necessary, but also why can't
wait until you get inside a police station.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Exactly, so exceptional circumstances only because a police station has
the necessary privacy and set up for searches to be
conducted privately, whereas if it's happening outside, out and about,
there has to be somewhere for a person to be searched.
The law also requires that strip searches be conducted in
the least invasive way possible and in a place that
(03:35):
provides reasonable privacy as I mentioned.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Okay, so that's what constitutes a strip search and the
conditions in which they can be performed in New South Wales.
Redferne Legal Center has now taken data from the last
ten years or so from New South Wales Police. What
does that data show us?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
So Redferne Legal Center analyzed eighty two thousand, four hundred
and seventy one strip searches. That's how many any strip
searches New South Wales Police conducted between twenty fourteen and
twenty twenty three, the latest available data on this, So
that's an average of more than eighty two hundred per year.
But the key finding is that in eighty six point
(04:12):
five percent of all searches, no illicit substance or no
illicit materials were found. So basically eighty six point five
percent of searches, or about seventy one thousand people, according
to Redferne Legal Center, were subjected to an invasive search
despite having done nothing wrong In terms of criminal convictions
(04:35):
that have come from these searchers. According to the report,
ten percent of searches resulted in a drug possession charge,
two percent in a drug supply charge, which is a
more serious conviction. But when you look at actual rates
of convictions, so not just someone being charged, but someone
being prosecuted and convicted of an offense, that's lower. That's
(04:55):
about six percent for possession and one point four percent
for drug supply.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
The other big aspects to drug searchers that we're all
very familiar with, especially those of us who frequent music
festivals and live events, is drug detection dogs. What role
do drug detection dogs play in the findings in the data?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
This is really interesting. So drug detection dogs sniffer dogs
as we would call them, are a significant factor when
it comes to the scale of the searchers. So the
data shows that around one in ten strip searches over
the reporting period were because of a drug detection dog,
So one in ten total search has happened essentially because
a sniffer dog indicated to police that they might be
(05:38):
looking at a person of interest.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And if you think back to those twoe requirements of
the law, that then satisfies that first requirement that there's
reasonable suspicion that there's some reason why the police would
want to perform a strip search.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yes, so while these made up eight percent of all
strip searchers, there was actually a higher link to illicit
drugs being discovered and sniffer dog's searchers compared to the
the reasons that a search would be conducted. So forty
percent of searches because of sniffer dogs were actually found
to have illicit substances. That's compared to overall searchers, where
(06:11):
illicit substances were found in fourteen percent of all searches.
Even though forty percent might sound high, advocates have called
into question the accuracy of dogs, considering that still means,
you know, six out of ten people were falsely identified
by a drug dog, they were strip searched and then
found not to be carrying anything illegal, So there are
(06:31):
question marks over kind of the efficacy and the means
of these searchers based on sniffer dogs. For these kinds
of searches, the conviction rates were similar to general searches,
So ten percent of people strip searched because of a
sniffer dog were found with substances and subsequently convicted. So
the New South I Was Police's own procedures state that
(06:53):
a drug dog indication alone doesn't provide legal grounds.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
For a search.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Interesting, officers are supposed to conduct further investigations first, so
that looks like questioning a person, maybe conducting general searchers
a bag search, padding them down. So there has to
be a few steps before a search legally passes that
threshold where a person can be taken into a private
room and asked to take their clothes off.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
So let's zoom out a bit now and kind of
think about this in terms of the procedure and what
these results mean. Am I right in thinking that strip
searchers are basically meant to be this last resort and instead,
according to the startup, they may have become more routine
rather than the exception.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yeah, this is exactly what legal experts are arguing. They're
saying that strip searchers have become part of routine policing
rather than, as you've alluded to, their sam being reserved
for serious circumstances and particularly at music festivals and also
on public transports. So RLC say the evidence of this
is based on a spike in strip searches that they
(07:56):
have seen or that were recorded between twenty sixteen and
twenty eighteen. The peaky is saw over fourteen thousand strip
searches annually. That's based on the average annual search being
about eight thousand. And interestingly, this all coincides with a
quota system that New South Wales Police had in place,
so they set targets for two hundred and forty one
(08:19):
thousand personal searches across the state over a two year
period and that's when we did see a spike in
strip searches.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
I want to pick up one thing you mentioned just before,
you said that there had been increased amount of strip
searches at train stations and on public transport. Tell me
a bit more about that and what that tells us
about the changing way that police are administering these searches
across the state. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
I think it's interesting because when we hear about strip searches,
when we think sniffer dogs. I don't know about you,
but I immediately imagine music festivals because that's where I've
seen it happen the most, and.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
It's where there's the most media focus.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Exactly, there's the media focus, there's a visibility. But data
released in October last year showed that since twenty sixteen,
New South Wales Police conducted eight hundred and eighty three
strip searchers at train stations, and this led RLC red
Ferone Legal Center to flag these concerns about the public
nature of train stations and whether or not it's appropriate
(09:14):
to be conducting so many strip searchers in a place
like a station that is so public, especially when the
law requires searches to be conducted with this idea of
reasonable privacy. So sometimes at train stations police will set
up makeshift curtains, There'll be structures on train platforms where
the searchers can be conducted behind those curtains. But for
(09:35):
Samantha Lee, who is a supervising solicitor at RLC, this
is inadequate. She said, there's no privacy at a train station.
Sometimes police set up those structures, but common sense tells
you this is inadequate. Those are her words, and the
data also shows that these searchers disproportionately target First Nations people.
So nine percent of train station searches are of First
(09:58):
Nations people right First Nations people in New South Wales
making up three point four percent of the state's population. Additionally,
there are concerns about underage searchers, so sixty six searches
in that report involved children age ten to seventeen, So
there are a whole lot of questions over how these
searches are being conducted, but also who are the subjects
(10:19):
of these searchers.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Why don't we have a think about the way in
which you should or can react if you are pulled
aside for a strip search by a New South Wales police.
We know that a lot of our audience are young
Australians who we hope go to live music and support
their great live music economy, and that's obviously an overlap
to where a lot of these searches happen. Yeah, so
what's legal experts say? Are your rights and how you
(10:43):
should behave should this happen to you?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, I mean we know that this has happened to
at least more than eight thousand people every year in
New South Wales for the last ten years. So the
most important thing to know is that you do have
the right to say no. The best thing that you
can say is I do not consent to this, So
that's what legal experts say. You can ask officers to
turn on their body worn cameras and to repeat that
(11:06):
they've done that so it's recorded. You can ask them
to note down your refusal or your non consent in
their notebook. Officers always carry those notebooks around. If you
have a friend with you, experts suggest that maybe it's
good to have that person film the interaction, not up close,
but to move a safe distance away and film the interaction.
(11:26):
But for your own safety, legal experts do generally advise
being cooperative, you know, rather than physically resisting, unless you're
prepared to go into custody and be taken to a
police station. That cooperating is usually the smoother path, the
path of least resistance. The key is making sure that
if you don't consent, that you're being really clear about
(11:47):
that and that that is documented, because that will become
really important evidence if you later want to challenge the
legality of a search. Now, for people under eighteen, police
have to call a parent or guardian before conducting a
strip search on a person age ten to seventeen, so
there are some gray areas if police claim the search
is urgent, but general all the thumb though, is that
(12:08):
parental consent must be sought before anyone under eighteen can
be searched.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
This is a really dynamic area of the law and
it's constantly in the headlines for the way in which
has evolved over the years. And right now there's this
major class action challenging these practices in New South Wales.
What's the latest with that case, because that's quite a
significant development, right.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, this is a really interesting one. So Red Ferm
Legal Center and Slater and Gordon, the law firm, launched
this action in twenty twenty two on behalf of thousands
of people who said they were strip searched at New
South Wales music festivals between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty two.
Those proceedings began in May this year. They have since concluded,
but a decision hasn't been handed down yet, so the
(12:52):
law firm Slater and Gordon said it could be several
months before we hear what that decision is, but those
proceedings have wrapped up for now.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And just quickly run me through the actual facts in
this case.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, So the lead plaintiff is Raya Meredith. She was
strip searched at Splendor in twenty eighteen Splender in the Grass,
the Byron Bay Music festival. Raya alleges she was taken
to a makeshift search area that did not have adequate privacy,
that she was asked to remove all her clothes, bend
over naked, remove her tampon so officers could inspect it.
No drugs were found, no wrongdoing was found there. And
(13:26):
the class action alleges that RYA's search and thousands of
others like it were unfair and constitute essentially assault by
police as well as false imprisonment relating to the forced searchers.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
So pretty serious allegation.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Very serious allegations against police. And there are over three
thousand people who have registered in the class action, so
three thousand people who allege wrongdoing in a strip search
with New South Wales police. Now, the RLC said that
it's an important step in holding police accountable for what
they called degrading strip searches, and Slater and Gordon, the
lawyers representing this class action, said that strip searches in
(14:03):
New South Wales have increased over twentyfold in just over
a decade. These lawyers called them traumatic, invasive, harmful and
that they should only be used as a last resort.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
People who have been unlawfully searched have a right to
compensation for what has happened to them.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Why don't we go to the police response here. What
have New south Wales Police said to not only the
lawsuit but to all of this new data.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yes, so broadly police defend their practices regarding the train
station data that was shared last year. A New South
Wales Police spokesperson basically said searchers are only conducted if
they are absolutely necessary based on the suspicions of an officer,
that those suspicions meet that threshold, and that there's seriousness
and urgency of the circumstances that make the strip search
(14:46):
necessary out of a police station. But in terms of
this class action we've seen a bit of a backflip
from police. So New south Wales Police said that they
would argue that the officer involved in the search was
authorized to conduct that search on the plaintiff had re
grounds to do so, and that the decision to do
a search was based on a positive indication that there
was prohibited substance in the airspace around the plaintiff, the
(15:10):
plaintiff's admission to smoking cannabis earlier that day, and police
observations of her demeanor, physical appearance and body language. But
in the days leading up to the trial actually beginning,
officials conceded that there was no lawful basis to strip
search the lead plaintiff, and court documents show essentially a
backflip that police withdrew their witnesses and that changed the
(15:32):
whole scope of the claim.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So there's no final result in that case yet, but
some pretty dramatic leg developments there. To end off this conversation,
why don't we take a big zoom out and look
at all of this data that you've run us through
today from the Redferne Legal Center. Give me a sense
of what you think the broader implications of all of
this are from a policy perspective. Yea, what do we
(15:54):
actually do with these findings now?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Yeah, Well, basically we have these findings that suggest this
disconnect between the law and what is happening in practice
from police. There's also this concern about the impact on
vulnerable communities, and there's this public health perspective as well
about harm reduction. So harm reduction experts argue that these
practices actually make drug use more dangerous. So at music festivals,
(16:18):
we've heard time and time again that there are concerns
about the presence of a sniffer dog that that might
make people take all their drugs at once and potentially
the health implications of that. There's this sort of preloading
or panic consumption to avoid detection. So experts and URLLC
have made several key recommendations. They want to end strip
searches based on the suspicion of minor drug possession. They
(16:40):
want to end all strip searches of children under eighteen,
and they want to cease the use of drug dogs
at festivals and events. They're also calling the mandatory annual
data so that there is more transparency in the reporting
of how strip search powers are being used, and for
the expansion of harm reduction programs as a more effective
(17:00):
alternative to these strip search approaches.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
There's always a lot of reform discussions that happen around
these sorts of issues. So right now, though police do
deploy drug sniffer dogs at music festivals, and this tension
between law enforcement and public health recommendations continues to evolve.
We've seen the surge in the number of testing facilities
now at festivals and the normalization especially in Queensland and
(17:26):
Victoria and increasingly as well in New South Wales of them.
But I think really the broader conversation here and what
I heard from that data from the Red Ferd and
Legal Center. Is that disconnects you were speaking about between
the guidelines and what the law says, and that line
you mentioned about the targets set on searching and we
(17:48):
need to make sure for the good people in our
New South Wales police force that there's a coherence between
what they're told to do on the shift and what
the law describes.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, exactly, And I mean, look, there has been some
progress or some reform in New South Wales. There was
a drug summit last year, pill testing trials have rolled
out in the state. Despite Premier Chris Mins kind of
taking a cautious approach to drug policy reform. There was
an early drug diversion initiative that was rolled out last
year that essentially now allows people caught with small amounts
(18:21):
of drugs in New South Wales to pay a fine
or complete a program instead of being criminally convicted. That
sort of initiative is really in its early stages, in
its infancy. We're not really sure the impact that that
has had yet in this space, but it is a
step in what legal experts describe as the right direction.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
A really complex issue with significant implications for civil liberties
and police practice in New South Wales, but at the
same time quite rapid progress as well. Emma, thank you
so much for running us through that. Thank you, and
thank you for joining us on the Daily os this morning.
We're going to be back in your ears with some
headlines later today. Until then, have a great day. My
(19:00):
name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung
Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torrestrate island
and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples
of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.