Editor's note (February 25, 2020): In an unprecedented move, RMIT ABC Fact Check is suspending this verdict.

Fact Check has lost confidence in the figures relied on to reach the verdict, and does not have confidence in new figures provided after publication.

Fact Check has been unable to obtain detailed information from the NSW Police about the reason behind a significant change in figures supplied to NSW Parliament.

On November 25, 2019, Fact Check asked the NSW Police for data relating to Mr Fuller's claims and was advised to submit a formal request under Freedom of Information laws. This request was lodged on 4 December, 2019.

As noted in the original article, NSW Police had not responded to the FOI request by the date of publication, December 11, 2019. The original article noted that it would be updated if necessary.

RMIT ABC Fact Check's previous verdict of "overstated" applied to three interconnected claims made by Mr Fuller.

At the time of original publication, Fact Check anticipated that any update would only apply to his second claim, about admissions of previous contact with drugs. In December 2019, the most recent publicly available information related to admissions made from 2002 to 2004.

In the case of Mr Fuller's first claim, that in nearly 40 per cent of cases searches following drug dog indications led to drugs being found, Fact Check based its original analysis on figures tabled in Parliament on behalf of NSW Minister for Police David Elliott.

These figures were tabled on October 24, 2019. Mr Fuller's claims were made on November 19, 2019.

On January 24, Fact Check received a response to its FOI request. Surprisingly, the response included figures that differ significantly from those tabled in Parliament in October.

These new figures align more closely than the previously tabled figures with Mr Fuller's first claim about how often drugs are found following an indication by a sniffer dog.

The following tables contain both sets of figures for comparison.

Figures tabled in October 2019



Year

Number of searches Number of searches where drugs found % where drugs found 2011-12 14,415 2,574 17.9 2012-13 13,729 3,256 23.7 2013-14 13,999 2,774 19.8 2014-15 14,139 3,006 21.3 2015-16 9,545 3,157 33.1 2016-17 8,882 3,032 34.1 2017-18 10,183 2,921 28.7 2018-19 11,533 2,757 23.9 Total 96,425 23,477 24.3

New figures provided to Fact Check in 2020

Year Number of searches Number of searches where drugs found % where drugs found 2011-12 14,619 3,878 26.5 2012-13 14,128 4,506 31.9 2013-14 14,370 4,057 28.2 2014-15 14,254 4,208 29.5 2015-16 10,215 4,294 42.0 2016-17 9,632 4,119 42.8 2017-18 10,804 3,931 36.4 2018-19 12,025 3,671 30.5 Total 100,047 32,664 32.7

In a statement on February 12, 2020, the NSW Police told Fact Check:

"The drug dog statistics provided to the Minister's office in October last year were developed differently from the standard production of official NSWPF statistics and had not been peer reviewed. They are incorrect."

A spokesman for Mr Elliott told Fact Check in a statement, also on February 12:

"After learning of the error, revised statistical information was provided to the Clerk of the NSW Legislative Council by the Minister's office to ensure the record is updated."

A spokesman for Mr Elliott provided Fact Check with a letter addressed to the Clerk of the NSW Legislative Council dated 23 January, 2020 containing these new figures.

Director of Procedure for the NSW Legislative Council Susan Want told Fact Check on February 14, 2020:

"The Clerk responded to Minister Elliot advising that the rules of the House did not allow him to publish the letter while the House was not sitting but that it could be retained for tabling by a Minister on Tuesday 25 February. While the document tabled… in October cannot be updated, in effect, the tabling of the new data will correct the record."

While the NSW Police maintain the information tabled in Parliament in October is "incorrect" and the new information is "accurate", Fact Check does not consider that it has received a sufficient explanation as to how the two sets of numbers were derived.

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the verdict on this fact check has been suspended and the verdict section removed.



The claim

Music festival season has kicked off around Australia, and so too has debate around how best to deal with the drug use associated with festivals



A recent coroner's report on the drug-related deaths of six young people at music festivals in NSW recommended the introduction of pill testing, an overhaul of strip searching and the scrapping of sniffer dogs at music festivals.

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said he would not ignore the recommendations, but has maintained he will not take on some of them.



Speaking to ABC Radio Sydney on November 19, Commissioner Fuller stood by the use of drug detection dogs at music festivals and other public places such as train stations.

"The stats are clear that nearly in 40 per cent of cases, when the dog sits down we find drugs,'' Commissioner Fuller said.



He added that in the remaining cases, a majority of people admitted to "having had drugs in their pocket at some stage".



"The drug dogs are very successful in finding drugs."



So, is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check takes a look.



The role of drug dogs in NSW

Specially-trained drug detection dogs have been used to locate drugs in NSW since 2001, when they were initially introduced as part of a wider program to combat drug crime in Cabramatta.



In 2001, the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act passed the state parliament, legislating for the use of drug dogs at licensed venues, public event spaces, and on prescribed public transport routes.

The then minister for police, Michael Costa, said that the legislation was aimed at targeting drug supply.

"The bill is aimed primarily at detecting and prosecuting persons committing offences relating to the supply of prohibited drugs and plants … It is clear that the activity envisaged is drug dealing," Mr Costa is quoted as saying in a NSW Ombudsman's review of the legislation.



However, he noted there was a chance low-level drug users would also be detected by the dogs, but said that would provide the opportunity for police to issue cautions under the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme and to direct users to rehabilitation programs.

Police powers in relation to drug dogs were expanded significantly in 2012, when changes allowed drug detection dogs to be used at tattoo parlours, at any public place in the Kings Cross entertainment precinct, and across more public transport routes.



As discussed in a 2016 review of the use of drug detection dogs in NSW by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at the University of NSW, this expansion saw the political language around the practice migrate to issues of "visual deterrence".



The then NSW attorney-general, Greg Smith, said at the time:

"The Government does not judge the effectiveness of drug detection dogs solely based on the apprehension of drug traffickers. Apart from the benefit of using these dogs for specific operational objectives, their use offers many policing benefits, including creating a general deterrence and providing a visible response to drug-related crime."



Assessing the claim

Fact Check has previously looked at the issue of the accuracy of drug detection dogs in NSW, in a fact check published in October 2018.

At that time, Fact Check found that on figures from the 2017 calendar year, no drugs were found in 63 per cent of searches after a drug dog indication, aligning with Commissioner Fuller's claim.

Those figures were compiled by Greens MP David Shoebridge through questions asked in NSW Parliament, and in most of the years available at the time — from 2009 to 2017, and the first five months of 2018 — the rate of no drugs found after a search hovered around 60 per cent.



However, more recently Mr Shoebridge has obtained updated figures, this time for financial years rather than calendar years, which differ from the previously published data.

The new figures are for the period from 2011-12 to 2018-19.



The first set of figures were provided progressively by ministers in answer to questions from Mr Shoebridge.

The Minister for Police, David Elliott, provided the second set of figures in October 2019 in response to more recent questions by Mr Shoebridge. All of Mr Shoebridge's questions had the same parameters.

Fact Check has assessed Commissioner Fuller's claim using the updated figures.



The data

Commissioner Fuller did not give a timeframe when he made his claim, but according to the latest statistics, from the 2018-19 financial year, drugs were found in 2,757 of 11,533 searches undertaken following an indication from a drug dog.

That means in 23.9 per cent of cases, an indication by a drug detection dog resulted in drugs being found, not 40 per cent as quoted by Commissioner Fuller.

How often do drug dogs find drugs in NSW?



According to the updated figures, in all searches since 2011-12, drugs have been found 24.3 per cent of the time.



Commissioner Fuller's claims came during a radio interview about his response to a November 8 report of an inquest by NSW Deputy Coroner Harriet Grahame into the deaths of six young people at music festivals.

The report contained a similar figure for 2018-19: "The fact is that in 2018–19 police figures supplied show that in personal searches after drug dog indication, drugs were found in 23.8% of cases."

Admissions of previous contact with drugs

Fact Check asked the NSW Police for information regarding how many people found not to have drugs after a search admitted to prior contact. A spokesperson said Fact Check would need to submit a GIPA request (a request for information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act) to access the information.



Fact Check has submitted a GIPA request, but had not received a response at the time of publication. If necessary, this fact check will be updated.



While recent data is unavailable, admissions of previous drug contact formed part of the NSW Ombudsman's analysis of the 2001 drug dogs legislation.

A pie chart from the NSW Ombudsman's report shows drug contact was admitted in 59 per cent of cases where no drugs were found. ( NSW Ombudsman )

According to that review, which looked at the period between February 2002 and February 2004, NSW Police classify an indication as "residual admitted" when a person indicated by a drug detection dog, who is found not to have drugs on them, makes an admission of previous "drug contact".

"Admissions of drug contact range from persons admitting to previous drug use (usually cannabis), to persons admitting that they have been around others who were using drugs (usually cannabis)," the review states.

The Ombudsman found that around 74 per cent of searches following a drug dog indication identified no drugs. However, in around 60 per cent of those cases, a residual admission was recorded, in line with Commissioner Fuller's claim.

These admissions, however, were not necessarily of possession, or "having had drugs in their pocket", as per Commissioner Fuller's claim. A number of excerpts from police reports contained in the review contain mostly admissions of contact with cannabis smoke.

That meant that in about 70 per cent of all searches after a drug dog indication, drugs were found or the person being searched admitted to contact with drugs.

The problem with residual admissions

NSW Police have previously argued that this 70 per cent figure, calculated as instances after an indication where drugs are found or recent contact admitted, should be used to describe the "accuracy rate" of drug detection dogs.



More recently they have suggested to the coroner's inquest into the deaths of six young people at music festivals that this accuracy rate is 80 per cent.

Fact Check previously spoke to ex-NSW police member and current drug detection dog trainer, Dave Wright, who said the dogs were "incredibly sensitive" to smell and that this sensitivity was sometimes "part of the problem".

"If someone has been carrying drugs, if they've had contact with drugs, even things like carrying currency that's been sitting with drugs — the dogs will often pick up on that," Mr Wright said.

However, the NSW Police do not accept that being in close proximity to other drug users could lead to an indication from a drug dog, contradicting Mr Wright's comments, and some admissions in the Ombudsman's report were of drug contact days, months and even years prior.

Fact Check also spoke to Dr Peta Malins, a lecturer in Criminology and Justice Studies at RMIT University, who said residual admissions should not be used as a measure of accuracy for two reasons.

"One, detecting prior use or contact is not something the dogs are being deployed for, and two, people will sometimes say things like this if they think it will help them avoid a potentially traumatising strip search," Dr Malins said in an email.

Experts question the use of admissions of previous drug contact statistics by the NSW Police. ( ABC News: Josh Bavas )



Remarks in the coroner's report into the drug-related deaths of young people at music festivals also call into question the police measure of drug dog accuracy.

"Police appear to assert that [an admission] may reflect that the dog is able to detect recent ingestion or contact, recent handling of drugs, drugs hidden internally or perhaps there has just been an ineffective search," the report states.

"Without more information it is impossible to know, but it is ludicrous to suggest that it is evidence of an 80 per cent success rate, given the variables involved."

Measuring the 'success' of the dogs

Commissioner Fuller said drug detection dogs were "very successful in finding drugs".

However, as already covered, searches after a drug dog indication result in drugs being found only 24 per cent of the time.

In addition to the proportion of searches turning up drugs after an indication, Fact Check has looked at three other measures of success.

How successful are the dogs at blocking the entry of drugs into music festivals?

Dr Malins told Fact Check that in the context of general detection work at music festivals, train stations and other public places, the dogs "are not very successful at all in finding drugs".

According to Dr Malins, at music festivals, "many people get past the dogs with drugs, including some who have described just walking right past a dog with drugs in their pocket."

She added that drugs were not considered difficult to purchase inside festivals and venues where dog operations were occurring.

A 2018 study of almost 2,000 Australian festival-goers conducted by researchers from the National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University suggests the majority of people carrying drugs into music festivals go undetected by drug-detection dogs.



It found that 97 per cent of surveyed people carrying illicit drugs who saw drug dogs at the last festival they attended went undetected.

"Interestingly, the 3 per cent that were positively identified by drug detection dogs still managed to carry their drugs into festival grounds as police performing the searches were unable to detect the drugs," the study states.

How successful are drug dogs in combating the supply of drugs?

As discussed earlier, when the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act was passed in 2001, the aim of the legislation was to combat the supply and trade of drugs.

However, evidence from as early as the 2006 NSW Ombudsman's review of the use of drug detection dogs suggest that the dogs have been ineffective in targeting supply offences.

Of more than 10,000 drug dog indications during the review period, 141 identified a trafficable amount of drugs (1.4 per cent). Just 19 (0.19 per cent) led to a successful prosecution for supply.

"Our examination of those persons successfully prosecuted for supply revealed that they were mostly young, male, first-time offenders involved in the 'technical' supply of drugs to friends and partners," the review states.

"It is clear that drug detection dogs are not an effective tool for detecting persons involved in the supply of prohibited drugs, which is the primary objective of the Drug Dogs Act."

More recent evidence also suggests it was rare for drug dogs to detect drugs intended for supply, such as a 2019 report by researchers from the University of New South Wales which looked at instances where a drug dog indication led to a police report (for example, where drugs were found) over the 10 years to 2018.



That report found that 4.8 per cent of official police responses to a drug dog indication were for supply.



"This research adds to the evidence that the dogs have limited effectiveness targeting drug suppliers given their existing methods of deployment," the report states.



It also found that supply offences were more likely to be detected mid-week in residential properties — not at music festivals and other public places.

How successful are drug dogs at deterring drug use?

Dr Malins told Fact Check multiple studies showed drug detection dogs did not deter people from drug use, but did change the way they would carry their drugs.

"The [drug dog] operations seem to underestimate the pleasures of drugs in these contexts and the lengths people will go to to try to still be able to use drugs at these events and places," she said.

The previously mentioned 2018 study on the use of drug detection dogs at musical festivals found that of those people surveyed who expected drug dogs to be present at the last event they attended, only 4 per cent reported that this threat led to the decision not to take drugs.

Police often rely on drug dogs as a deterrent to drug use, but how successful are they in this pursuit? ( AAP: Dave Hunt )

Rather, almost half of those surveyed (48 per cent) said their response to the presence of drug detection dogs would be to conceal their drugs well, while 15 per cent said they would get someone else to carry their drugs.

"Almost all festival-goers surveyed did not report being deterred from drug usage by the expected presence of drug dogs. Instead, a variety of alternative responses to avoid detection were reported, many of which could place festival-goers at greater risk of experiencing drug-related harms," the study found.

A similar 2017 study conducted by NDARC researchers found that of a number of hypothetical police scenarios (including no police presence), the use of drug detection dogs at a festival would elicit the largest reduction in drug use and possession.

"While 76.5 per cent said they would use illicit drugs given no police presence, this fell to 66.3 per cent given drug detection dogs," the report states.

However, the report also noted that "most people will continue to offend", found that the use of drug detection dogs led to the highest rate of of purchasing drugs in festival ground, and that drug dogs were not the policing strategy most likely to reduce total drug offending — that is, supply and purchasing as well as use and possession.

Principal researcher: Ellen McCutchan



Sources