The ACT Greens have called on ACT Policing to stop using spit hoods, which they consider a human rights violation.

The Queensland Police Service announced yesterday that they would cease using spit hoods immediately, as NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania have done. Greens backbencher Andrew Braddock claims this increases pressure on ACT Policing to follow suit.

“Why are ACT Policing using spit hoods when the majority of police forces across Australia have abandoned this inhumane practice?” Mr Braddock asked.

A spit hood is a bag constructed out of mesh that is placed over a detainee’s head to stop them from spitting or biting, with the aim of preventing injury to or infection of the police officer.

Mr Braddock will bring forward legislation to ban spit hoods before the end of the year.

In his view, spit hoods are “inhumane, dangerous, and degrading devices … that restrict breathing”.

But the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA) believes that spit hoods are a necessary safety measure, to which there is often no practical alternative; banning them, they argue, would place police officers at unnecessary risk.

“Spit hoods are used to prevent AFPA members from being exposed to transmissible diseases, many of which can have an ongoing and harmful impact on a member’s health,” AFPA president Alex Caruana said. “These tools are applied under strict guidelines for the safety of the person in custody and police members.”

According to ACT Policing, before any type of restraint is used on a person in custody, police must consider the safety of the person in custody, the safety of others (including other persons in custody), threats made to expel bodily fluid, recorded history of spitting, aggressive or threatening behaviour, the likelihood of injury to any person, and the circumstances of the incident.

As of 12 April, there are approximately 100 spit hoods in stock at the ACT Watchhouse.

ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan stated that one was used after an arrest recently: the offender, a 16-year-old girl, allegedly refused to surrender her alcohol, bit the inside of their mouth, and spat blood at arresting officers.

“Biting the inside of one’s mouth and then spitting the resultant blood at arresting officers is not something which can be precluded with handcuffs,” Mr Caruana said. “The only realistic way this can be prevented is by placing a prophylactic barrier between the arrested person and the arresting officer(s).

“Any such barrier must be safe for all persons involved in its use; be able to be secured (and not be able to be removed by the offender); be durable, hygienic, and reusable; and meet a minimum manufacturing standard.

“Spit hoods, when used correctly by trained police officers, meet all of these requirements.”

But Mr Braddock is aghast that officers are using spit hoods on children; the model used in the watch house, he noted, is the same as one implicated in at least one death in custody.

“Using spit hoods is counter to evidence-based standards of communication and de-escalation to resolve violence and aggression,” the Greens MLA claimed.

“These standards are used in every other clinical and correctional care facility across the ACT, and most of Australia. Protective screens, improved practices, and personal protective equipment like face masks and shields are affordable, accessible, and effective.”

Spit hoods are not used at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre, or the Dhulwa Mental Health Unit.

That, Mr Braddock said, showed there were “alternative ways to assist people in distress”.

“Queensland Police are satisfied they can protect their police officers with additional personal protective equipment (PPE), protective screens, and operational skills training. Surely ACT Police can investigate alternative measures?

“Police concerns and the dignity and safety of the Canberrans they serve can be reconciled with proportionate measures that do not risk life.”

But the Queensland Police Union of Employees opposed the ban of spit hoods, the ABC reported. President Ian Leavers said the ban took away an option for police to use on “the worst of the worst”; henceforward, people might resort to “open or closed hand tactics” (“a smack in the mouth”) on people who spat on or bit police.

“It seems that the Greens, Australia-wide, would rather see pain compliance of people in custody when they spit or bite a police officer,” the AFPA commented on Facebook.

The ACT Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, stated last month that spit hoods could constitute cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and advocated the use of PPE instead.

In response, the AFPA said the Commissioner had blatantly politicised the issue, and ignored the long history of the safe use of spit hoods in policing. Face shields, as the Commissioner suggested, were “impractical, unsafe, and useless”: difficult to secure, and could be used as weapons.

The AFPA stated that if spit hoods are banned, they will push the Government to introduce mandatory blood and saliva testing for people who spit on or bite police officers, if not everyone who is arrested.

“Queensland, NSW, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia have this legislation in place, so by using Mr Braddock’s logic, he should have no issues supporting this legislation,” an AFPA spokesperson said.

Mr Caruana said the AFPA would advise any police officers who were spat on to consider charging the offender with ‘assault frontline emergency worker.’

He also wants the existing legislation amended so that if an offender is aware they have a communicable disease, they would then be charged with an aggravated offence, and face harsher penalties.

The AFPA also doubted whether Mr Braddock would have the authority to ban spit hoods, which has a direct impact on the operational capabilities of ACT Policing. Section 23(c) of the ACT (Self-Government) Act 1988 states that the Legislative Assembly cannot make laws on the provision by the Australian Federal Police of police services in relation to the ACT.

“How will the Attorney-General circumvent section 23(c)?” Mr Caruana asked last month. “Arguably, any restriction on ACT Policing using spit hoods affects how the AFP delivers policing services to the ACT.

“Even more importantly, why should he try? The COVID pandemic certainly isn’t over – the Government should be on board with social distancing, and in those cases where distancing isn’t possible, making barrier protection available and effective in line with what every public health body around the country is advocating for.

“Mask mandates are still a very recent memory for all of Canberra’s citizens; this kind of hysterical commentary from the HRC seeks to hide the fact that spit hoods are simply modified masks designed to protect people.

“The ACT Attorney-General should be more concerned with how the ACT judicial system is under-utilising bail and sentencing provisions and the resulting scourge of bail breaches that are making the community feel unsafe instead of this storm in a teacup.

“I think everyone needs to take a step back and understand that spit hoods aren’t something new to Canberra. … These are a well-established last resort used only to protect [police], the public, and first responders. They are not tools used to coerce, scare, or punish people.”

Canberra Daily is keen to hear from you about a story idea in the Canberra and surrounding region. Click here to submit a news tip.