Key Takeaways
- A Victorian supreme court judge has criticized the police for unnecessarily waking up people in custody during the night under the guise of welfare checks.
- The judge described the practice as "idiotic" and "cruel" and said it could result in the end of criminal trials in regional courts.
- The criticism was made in a decision to move a murder trial from Shepparton to Melbourne due to the accused being too sleep-deprived.
- The judge noted that the detainees were classified as low risk for their physical and mental health and therefore did not require hourly checks.
- The accused were found guilty of various crimes, including murder, kidnapping, and arson, and are awaiting sentencing.
Introduction to the Criticism
A Victorian supreme court judge, Justice Michael Croucher, has strongly criticized the police for their practice of waking up people in custody during the night under the guise of welfare checks. The judge described the practice as "idiotic" and "cruel" and said it could result in the end of criminal trials in regional courts where the accused have to be held in the local police station. This criticism was made in a decision to move a murder trial from Shepparton to Melbourne after the accused argued that they were too sleep-deprived due to the police waking them up every hour.
The Reasoning Behind the Criticism
Justice Croucher understood that the statewide welfare policy of conducting an hourly check on detainees in police custody was implemented after inquests into deaths in custody. However, he noted that those cases involved "circumstances nothing like the situation that obtains here". The judge argued that the detainees in this case were classified as low risk for their physical and mental health and therefore did not require hourly checks. He stated that there was no need to wake the accused every hour, or disturb their sleep, because of welfare concerns. The judge emphasized that this practice should stop, as it is unnecessary and inhumane.
The Impact on the Trial
The judge agreed to move the murder trial from Shepparton to Melbourne after the accused argued that they were too sleep-deprived to meaningfully follow the trial and give instructions. The accused, Kylie Stott, 40, Dimitri D’Elio, 27, and Danny Clarke, 41, were charged with kidnapping and murdering 19-year-old Charlie Gander and burning his body. The judge noted that the severity of their alleged crimes made it unthinkable that the police would engage in such behavior, especially when it was disguised as a welfare concern. He questioned why the police would wake them up continuously throughout the night, given the seriousness of the crimes they were accused of.
The Outcome of the Trial
The trial was eventually moved to Melbourne, and the accused were found guilty of various crimes. D’Elio was found guilty of murder, kidnapping, and arson, while Stott was found guilty of kidnapping and manslaughter. Clarke was found guilty of kidnapping. The judge’s criticism of the police was made public after the trial had finished, as his reasons for moving the trial could not be published until then. The accused are now awaiting sentencing, with Clarke being sentenced on Monday and D’Elio and Stott due to be sentenced in February.
Conclusion and Implications
The criticism by Justice Croucher highlights the need for the police to rethink their approach to welfare checks in custody. The practice of waking up detainees every hour is not only unnecessary but also inhumane, especially when the detainees are classified as low risk. The judge’s decision to move the trial to Melbourne due to the accused’s sleep deprivation emphasizes the importance of ensuring that detainees are able to receive a fair trial. The police must balance their duty to protect the welfare of detainees with the need to ensure that they are able to participate meaningfully in their trial. The implications of this criticism are significant, as it could result in the end of criminal trials in regional courts if the police do not change their approach.