ACT Policing will no longer use spit hoods – mesh bags placed over detainees’ heads to stop them biting or spitting saliva or blood – after the Australian Federal Police banned them last week.

The ACT Greens welcomed the decision, but the police union, the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), is concerned community policing will become more dangerous.

The AFP’s review found that spit hoods were not sufficient to prevent transmissible diseases, while the risk of using them outweighed the benefits of their use. The AFP said it would provide equipment and implement procedures to better protect police from spitting and biting.

ACT Policing used spit hoods on limited occasions, while the broader AFP did not use them at all.

“There is no justification for the use of these devices, which have proved dangerous and are implicated in the deaths of vulnerable people,” Andrew Braddock MLA, Greens spokesperson for police, said. “Our justice system works better when it treats people with dignity.”

The ACT will end the use of spit hoods and provide the alternative protections, Mr Braddock said.

“No-one deserves to be spat on at work.”

Mr Braddock called on ACT Policing to end “this inhumane practice” last year.

• ACT Greens say police must stop using spit hoods (21 September 2022)

AFPA: Introduce mandatory testing

The AFPA cannot support the ban on spit hoods, the union’s president, Alex Caruana, said.

“AFP members are now faced with the reality of working without any PPE to minimise their exposure to bodily fluids. Offenders are still able to spit while handcuffed or restrained.

“This is clearly an unacceptable position to leave police in …”

In fact, Mr Caruana said last week, Mr Braddock’s “push … to ban spit hoods (an essential piece of Personal Protective Equipment) without thinking of the consequences” was “ill-conceived”.

“The argument against spit hoods was made on the grounds of human rights,” Mr Caruana said. “What of the human rights of citizens who devote their working lives to protecting others?”

The AFPA insists that (like NSW and the Northern Territory) persons who weaponise bodily fluids against police have mandatory blood and saliva tests.

“We expect the government to ensure that all police members are afforded the same minimum level of protection,” Mr Caruana said today.

“Without mandatory testing to rule out offenders being infected with particular diseases, police officers face periods of up to six months of mental trauma and uncertainty before they can be sure that they haven’t been infected with a transmissible disease. Mandatory testing could reduce this period if certain diseases could be eliminated from the testing regime straight away.”

“It beggars belief,” Mr Caruana said last week, “that a supposedly progressive city like Canberra isn’t doing more to curb occupational violence in this respect, as well as mitigate the potential for mental trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).”

Mr Caruana said that during a recent conversation, Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury indicated that he supported legislating mandatory testing.

“Any reform to ACT legislation to allow for mandatory testing will need to involve consultation with a range of key stakeholders,” Mr Rattenbury said today.

Mr Braddock said blood testing should be based on expert medical advice about the risk of transmission.

AFPA: Fine for spitting in police officer’s mouth “manifestly inadequate”

The AFPA also wants the government to remove the provision for offenders who assault frontline workers to be financially penalised, rather than imprisoned. Its position is that violent or sexually motivated crimes must not be punished with fines.

Last week, a Canberra man was fined only $350 for spitting into a police officer’s mouth – a punishment Mr Caruana said was manifestly inadequate for assaulting a first responder, and did not act as a deterrent.

A 19-year-old man from Jerrabomberra pleaded guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to assaulting a frontline community service provider, trespassing, and failing to comply with an exclusion direction. The man refused to leave a McDonald’s restaurant in Civic in November after a security guard asked him to, and ACT Policing moved him on. Shortly afterwards, he attempted to return to the McDonald’s; as police again escorted him away, he spat, but some of the saliva landed in an officer’s mouth. (According to The Canberra Times, the man spat towards the ground, but the saliva hit the police officer in the face.)

“It is unacceptable for a magistrate to think that this is a fair punishment for assaulting a police officer,” Mr Caruana said. “My members are rightly questioning why they should go out and put their physical and mental wellbeing on the line if the courts won’t ultimately support them.

“The member who was assaulted will be exposed to ongoing mental trauma as they wait for the results of medical testing. For up to six months, they face having to live separately from their families, unable to physically touch their loved ones or hug their children.”

Mr Rattenbury said that any assault on a police officer was “a concern”. Although he was confident in the magistrates, he would not comment on individual sentencing decisions, due to the government’s concern for judicial independence.

“Our Police perform an immensely valuable role for the community, and they deserve to be safe and protected from crimes, just like other citizens,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“People committing crimes against Police can be charged with offences and sentenced independently by ACT courts, as they should be, based on all the circumstances of the crime.

“Sentencing decisions are made by the judiciary, considering several factors. ACT Courts, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, perform critical functions that are independent and separate from the government,” Mr Rattenbury said. “It is these functions which determine the appropriate response to a crime that has been committed.

“While I recognise that sometimes individuals or sections of the community are not satisfied with decisions made by courts, or by the DPP, these decision-makers must weigh competing and complex issues, and I am confident that they are performing these roles in a highly professional, independent, and ethical way.”

Mr Rattenbury noted that in 2020, the ACT Government made it a specific offence to assault police and other frontline workers, carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. At the time, the AFPA lobbied for a five-year penalty and a strict liability offence for assaulting police officers, but the ACT Government did not consider this compliant with human rights.

Meanwhile, the AFPA’s legal team is reviewing options available to police if threatened by bodily fluids, including the peaceful withdrawal of labour.

“Legislation currently in force prevents AFP employees from engaging in industrial action such as strikes and protest marches,” Mr Caruana said.

“There is, however, no legislation preventing members from physically withdrawing from specific situations where the danger to them and/or the public is too great. An example of this in the ACT is traffic pursuits being banned due to the risk to other motorists.

“My position is that members should similarly withdraw from interacting with a person if they appear to be preparing to spit, or have a history of doing so.”