Crime Law Soc Change (2008) 50:91–109

DOI 10.1007/s10611-008-9119-3

Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion

Sharon Pickering & Jude McCulloch &

David Wright-Neville

Published online: 12 June 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This article overviews a large, 3-year study conducted by Monash

University and Victoria Police on Counter-Terrorism Policing and Culturally Diverse
Communities. It sets out the development of a social cohesion approach to counter-
terrorism policing based on extensive empirical research with police members,
culturally diverse communities and through the close reading of counter-terrorism
law and policy in Australia.

Introduction

This article summarises the approach, findings and analysis of a three-year

collaborative study [22] that investigated the ways police and culturally diverse
communities are experiencing counter-terrorism policing. This research was
undertaken against the backdrop of a global neoconservative push to change the
nature of policing and counter-terrorism. Historically most liberal democracies have
reacted to terrorism with paramilitary and ‘hard power’ responses [21]. This research
begins from the assumption, based on existing research, that such approaches carry a
significant risk of escalating the tensions through which terrorism is generated and
sustained [27, 28]. It also recognises that the policing of counter-terrorism stands to
benefit most from being transformed and relocated as a responsibility of civil society
[13]. Consequently this research seeks an alternative path to counter-terrorism
policing, one that places less emphasis on hard policing power and shifts the focus
instead to the importance of soft power, embodied in this case in community
policing, as critical to a successful counter-terrorism strategy within societies that are
defined by high levels of cultural and religious diversity. The research is based on
one of the most successful multicultural regions in the Western world, the southern

S. Pickering (*) : J. McCulloch : D. Wright-Neville

Criminology, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Building 11 (Menzies),
Clayton Campus, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia
e-mail: Sharon.Pickering@arts.monash.edu.au
92 S. Pickering et al.

Australian state of Victoria and its capital city, Melbourne. Taken collectively, the
findings of this study suggest that the role of policing in counter-terrorism stands to
be positively transformed if it is conceptualised within the gamut of community
policing. Such a transformation has most to offer policing and multicultural
communities if it is conceived in terms of enhancing social cohesion. As the full
findings and analysis of this study have been published elsewhere, the purpose of
this article is to summarise the outcomes of the study and how they may begin to
inform a social cohesion approach to counter-terrorism. It will focus specifically on
the challenges for such an approach in terms of how police and communities
currently experience one another in the changed security environment post-9/11.

Background: developing alternative approaches to counter-terrorism policing

Community policing has remained at the forefront of contemporary policing efforts

since it first gained prominence in the early 1980s in the UK and the USA [18, 25,
29]. In Australia, community policing emerged in the early 1990s and to varying
degrees it continues to inform policing practices in both federal and state
jurisdictions, although it is embraced more enthusiastically in some states than
others ([9]: 28). The widespread embrace of the community policing model was
influenced by a number of factors including changing notions of community and
relationships between police and communities [2, 5–8, 10, 12, 17, 26, 29].
Community policing evolved as a broad and highly flexible concept with
particular relevance for culturally and religiously diverse societies [23].1 It has
proved to be a highly practical approach to policing, although its utility has been
better realised in those jurisdictions where it has been matched by soft power
initiatives – many of which need to be implemented by agencies other than the
police – designed to build confidence and a spirit of cooperation among various
community groups and the state. Victoria has been especially successful in this
regard; and, in the post-9/11 environment, rather than losing momentum community
policing principles have continued to be applied to an ever-increasing range of
policing practices.
While community policing ideally involves change at the philosophical, strategic,
tactical and organisational levels, in practice it rarely addresses all four [1, 3, 4, 11,
24]. Community policing is an approach to policing that includes the reordering of
police priorities: the development of a broader definition of ‘police work’; increased
emphasis on community cooperation as integral to effective policing operations; and
a reconfiguration of police work to include social objectives that transcend the
traditional focus on law and order [26].
Many are seeking to develop an approach to counter-terrorism policing that is at
least informed, if not based on, the community policing approach [see for example
19]. Policing organisations have good reason for rethinking the conventional

1
While there are many definitions of community policing, this study uses the following as a working
definition: ‘[community policing is] a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that police
officers and private citizens working together… [in partnership] can help solve contemporary community
problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and neighbourhood decay’ [30].
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 93

wisdom in relation to counter-terrorism strategies. As relationships with the

community underpin police legitimacy in liberal democracies and are therefore
critical for effective policing, policing organisations have the most to lose in the
counter-terrorism environment both in terms of their relationship with communities
and their reliance on them.
Innes has outlined a Community Intelligence-based approach to counter-terrorism
policing by focusing on neighbourhood policing. As a particular UK-based form of
community policing, he suggests how it can be used to prevent and deter terrorist
incidents through the manufacture of “community intelligence ‘feed’” ([16]: 222).
Established approaches to the collection and use of intelligence are not easily
adaptable to what is viewed as the ‘new’ terrorist threat. In arguing for a better fit
between neighbourhood policing and counter-terrorism he suggests that the building
of interpersonal trust between minority communities and the police can enhance the
flow of community intelligence. This relies on high-visibility reassurance policing
and expanded police-community contact through wide but weak networks of
community engagement that assist in building an understanding of different
communities, individuals and community tensions. Innes further argues that
increasing the number of police contacts will ensure that the police are better able
to ‘monitor’ the activities of people and maintain appropriate levels of surveillance.
Built on long-term relationships between individuals (rather than between
individuals and often mistrusted institutions), the trust established is the ‘working
capital’ of community intelligence. Community Intelligence, in turn, is considered a
form of ‘soft power’ that works through processes of ‘persuasion, negotiation and
agenda setting’.
The Community Intelligence approach to counter-terrorism policing, built on
Innes’s [14] concept of signal crime and interrogation of reassurance policing [15],
notes the way that terrorism amplifies social divisions and perceived harm in terms
of inter-ethnic and interfaith community tension. Moreover, it recognises that police
efforts to prevent or respond to a terrorist incident can further escalate such tensions
within the community. However, the focus of this approach is not explicitly on how
harm can potentially arise from police responses to terrorism that amplify levels of
insecurity in vulnerable communities.
Underpinning his theory with the application of basic, democratic mechanisms of
policing to enhance community input into policing priorities, Innes [16] also
recognises the difficulties of engaging groups where community-police relations
have been historically problematic. He acknowledges that strategic engagement with
the community depends on connecting with the right people, which is accomplished
through the wide but shallow expansion of contact networks. Such ‘wide but thin’
trust developed through the neighbourhood policing model is considered by Innes to
be inherently fragile (especially to compromise by dominant non-police voices such
as politicians); however, when built over time it is considered to be sufficient for the
provision of community intelligence.
The question remains, however, as to whether community intelligence is
sufficient for maintaining, consolidating and enhancing social cohesion which helps
undermine the threat of terrorist violence. There is also the unresolved problem that
arises when police interaction with the community is perceived as mainly aimed at
intelligence gathering. In communities where there exist a high number of
94 S. Pickering et al.

individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds, and where the police are seen as
instruments of a repressive state, there is often a reluctance to engage with police no
matter how high-profile their public presence. Indeed, unless inherited fear of the
police can be broken down, there is a risk that a visible police presence might feed
insecurity and fear of persecution. Under such circumstances intelligence gathering
can be rendered more rather than less complex.
By contrast, Loader [20] critiques community and problem-oriented policing
strategies as contributing towards making insecurity a pervasive feature of everyday
life through the provision of ‘ambient policing’, particularly in the post-9/11 context.
Specifically he criticises the ‘wide but shallow’ approach to community engagement
for not adequately considering the negative consequences of expanded and highly
visible police numbers, unmediated attentiveness to majority community concerns,
or the well-documented, negative cultural work performed by policing institutions
that drives a pervasive sense of insecurity in some communities. He argues that the
approach to policing offered by Innes presumes that public demands for order are
benign, that demands for particular styles of policing made by ‘consumer citizens’
should be met, and that such theories do not take account of the concerns of those
who experience routine policing. Further, Loader argues that Innes misconstrues the
contribution that policing makes to citizen security. The reproduction of social and
political inequalities is at the heart of Loader’s critique and he sees ‘ambient
policing’ as failing to confront the conditions that generate insecurity: “By treating
security as an unmediated relation between police and citizen that requires the
former to be routinely displayed in front of the latter, and by pandering to, rather
than calling into question, popular fantasies of total security, ambient policing makes
security pervasive in ways that, in the end, foster and sustain the very insecurity it
purports to attack” [20: 209].”
In contrast to the approach presented by Innes, Loader offers an account of “…the
policing-security nexus that is deep (policing is, sociologically speaking, funda-
mental to people’s sense of security) but narrow (police institutions should be
reactive, minimal agencies of last resort) and considers the forms of institutional
design and politics that are prerequisite to making security an axiomatic – rather than
pervasive – ingredient of the lived social relations of democratic polities” ([20]: 204).
Enhancing the positive cultural work of policing while recognising and
minimising the negative cultural work of policing institutions can contribute to
increasing levels of trust and attachment within a political community. Moreover it
can foster a sense of belonging mediated through community institutions.
Democratic policing does not need to be ambient, but rather can produce social
order and social meaning by being cognisant of what voices and rights claims are
heard and legitimated. Instead of focusing on the level of crime control or disorder
prevention, the focus can be on how crime is controlled and disorder prevented, in
ways that are conducive to the security and prosperity of all groups.
Loader argues that the positive cultural work of the police is enhanced through
human rights and regulatory controls on police powers and enhanced democratic
governance. Moreover, he posits democratic policing should not involve responding
uncritically to all publicly voiced needs and expectations but rather should ensure
that both minority and majority concerns are heard and responded to. He further
asserts that police relations with culturally and linguistically diverse communities are
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 95

institutionally central and ongoing to core policing functions, and thus are not to be
left as the preserve of Specialist units. This approach is achieved not through
increased or more visible levels of policing but the development of tacit trust in the
policing institution through a minimal, rights-based form of policing. Such a
viewpoint not only offers a carefully calibrated approach to democratic policing but
is primarily conceptualised to enhance feelings of belonging by individuals and
diverse community groups, as well as offering a concrete model of how police
institutions can actively contribute to the production and prospering of the values
and practices of inclusive democracy.

The study

This study sought to identify the challenges of developing a counter-terrorism

approach cognisant of Loader’s critique and mindful of the benefits of community
intelligence espoused by Innes. It did so by seeking out the voices of those charged
with community and counter-terrorism policing, as well as the experiences of diverse
communities of that policing. It also sought to analyse the legislative and policy
environment in which community and counter-terrorism policing took place. As a
result, the study utilised a diverse methodology and reports here on three streams of
research: legislative policy; policing; and community research. The legislative/policy
stream deployed a comparative method to analyse Australian state and federal
counter-terrorism legislation in an international context (most notably in relation to
the UK and USA). It sought to identify key points of comparison and contrast on
legislative/policy themes, and convergence and divergence of responses. A large
volume of legislation and associated documentation was analysed (N=42) with the
aim of identifying trends and themes, particularly those most likely to impact on law
enforcement. The documents reviewed included legislation, parliamentary debates,
government media releases, reports to parliament on the operation of legislation,
government policy documents, statements by key policy makers, police annual
reports and annual reports of security agencies.
The research gathered by the policing stream included interviews with fifty
members of Victoria Police and a force-wide, online survey, completed by 541
participants. Thirty-two of the interviews were carried out in three busy metropolitan
stations serving highly diverse communities. Eighteen interviews were conducted
with members of specialist units directly engaged with counter-terrorism functions
and/or community development liaison functions. An additional interview was
conducted with a member of senior police management. Preparation of the interview
schedule was informed by an advisory board (made up of 32 leaders of diverse
communities from across Victoria), which worked with the project team throughout.
Interviews were carried out during working hours in the workplace and took
approximately 50 min. Informed by the interview findings, a survey instrument was
developed to examine the attitudes and experiences of the wider membership of
Victoria Police towards community and counter-terrorism policing. An email was
sent to all members of Victoria Police via the intranet that included a link to the
survey which was live for two weeks. The survey consisted of 45 questions with
mostly Likert-scale response categories (such as ‘strongly agree’ through to ‘strongly
96 S. Pickering et al.

disagree’). A majority of these questions were multi-part questions with the same
response categories to make the survey easy for participants to fill out. Survey
questions centred on the following: attitudes to general changes within the force;
attitudes to community policing and working with diverse communities; attitudes to
counter-terrorism policing; perceptions about levels of counter-terrorism training;
perceptions of counter-terrorism legislation; and challenges for counter-terrorism
within Victoria Police. Convenience sampling was utilised in the survey by asking
for volunteers to participate in the online survey. The response rate of approximately
5% of the force, while not representative of the force as a whole, nevertheless gave a
good overview of general attitudes towards counter-terrorism policing and culturally
diverse communities. The demographics of respondents largely mirrored the make-
up of the force. The data was analysed in SPSS including the cross-tabulation for
variables such as gender, location, work area and cultural background. For some
demographic variables there are small numbers for some groups, most notably in
relation to work areas. This is noted in the analysis of this data.
The data for the communities research stream was collected in over 60 interviews,
42 with individual representatives of different ethnic and cultural community groups,
a series of smaller focus groups (of between five and 15 participants), and a
complementary series of larger public forums involving between 16 and 90 people.
In the latter, after initial discussion, the group was broken down into smaller working
groups facilitated by project research assistants. A cross-section of views was
collected by targeting groups with a community focus (such as the Horn of Africa)
but also by disaggregating these groups into separate components (such as Somali
and Eritrean). Using this approach, 27 different cultural and national groups
participated in the research exercise. Following these interviews with community
leaders, focus groups were convened. The aim was to build outwards from the
comments of community leaders and to consider attitudes within communities more
generally, as well as disaggregating these attitudes along age, gender and residential
lines. Based on the findings of the interviews, a decision was made to concentrate
the focus on Muslim Victorians largely because they were considered to be
experiencing higher levels of anxiety in the current environment and community
leaders encouraged greater engagement. Fourteen focus groups were then under-
taken with Muslim Victorians in different suburban locations with four youth-
focused, three female-focused, three regionally-focused, and covering six different
national groups.

Key findings

The following is a brief overview of the findings of the study.

Counter-terrorism legislation

The most important feature of the counter-terrorism environment has been the rapid
development of an expansive and complex legislative terrain. This presents
numerous challenges for the policing organisation and heterogeneous communities.
The scope and pace of legislative change has been dramatic. In six years Australia
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 97

has gone from having no specific counter-terrorism legislation to having a mass of

legislation that in a number of ways fundamentally alter the context in which law
enforcement operates. Policing is now implicated in national security to an
unprecedented extent and the lines between evidence and intelligence, and the
police and the military, are less clear-cut than in the past. A shift in the balance
between state and federal authorities is also apparent.
The review of legislation and policy reveals that an optimal policy and legislative
environment pays close attention to preventing terrorism through preventing attacks
and preventing the growth of support for resort to violence in pursuit of political,
ideological and/or religious causes. Establishing and maintaining a policing
environment that successfully achieves this prevention requires a carefully balanced
response that is the subject of continual reflection and refinement. The balance
cannot be reduced to a simple equation or one-off set of policies or guidelines
because it will inevitably involve ongoing monitoring and reflection. The current
counter-terrorism policy and legislative framework merges national security and law
enforcement to an unprecedented extent. While community policing and counter-
terrorism policing have traditionally been seen at opposite ends of the policing
spectrum, there is an emerging approach – evident particularly in the UK – that
seeks to import the principles of community policing into national security (see for
example [19]).
The current Australian Federal Government policy approach to countering
terrorism includes long-term measures aimed at preventing terrorism that incorporate
building social cohesion. The policy, however, does not include these as core
elements in preventing terrorism. Overall the Federal policy emphasises prevention
of terrorist events rather than prevention that aims to undermine the growth of
support for terrorism. Furthermore, the counter-terrorism policy approach does not
pay specific attention to human rights. The counter-terrorism policy environment at
the state level differs in emphasis from the federal level. The Victorian state
Government policy, by contrast, clearly states that a range of counter-measures will
be directed at both short-term prevention of terrorist acts and longer-term strategies
aimed at reducing the support for terrorism. Both of these aspects are considered to
be core to the task of preventing terrorism. The Victorian Government pays specific
attention to human rights in the development of counter-terrorism policy and
legislation. The Victoria Police policy approach to countering terrorism is consistent
with the Victorian Government approach. It pays specific attention to human rights
and includes enhancing social cohesion as a core element of its approach to policing.
Maintaining and enhancing human rights while countering terrorism are important in
minimising the processes that lead people to support or engage in terrorist actions.
The Victorian Government and Victoria Police policy foci are well-framed to
minimise the processes that lead people to support or engage in terrorist acts.
Predominantly, in contrast to the dual aims of the Victorian Government policy, the
Federal counter-terrorism legislative framework is focused on preventing terrorist acts.
Its aim of disrupting terrorist networks and of targeting the very early stages of planning
expands the remit of traditional criminal law. Preventative detention orders (PDOs) are
particularly significant for Victoria Police and state police generally, because they
represent a combined effort between the states and the Federal Government (see sec.
105.33 Commonwealth Crimes Act and sec. 13ZB of Terrorism (Community
98 S. Pickering et al.

Protection) Amendment Act 2006 (Vic)). The Victorian counter-terrorism legislation

has not been widely used making it difficult to judge its effectiveness and other impacts.
The combined federal and state preventative counter-terrorism legislative framework
will inevitably mean that the number of those who feel the effects of the laws and who
are innocent, will be greater than under the traditional criminal law framework. There is
a danger that the impact of this may be significant in terms of fuelling a process of
alienation, social exclusion and, ultimately, support for terrorism. The preventative
counter-terrorism legislative framework simultaneously creates challenges for commu-
nity policing and makes community policing more important in preventing terrorism.
Profiling involving the use of race, ethnicity or national origin (or perceived race,
ethnicity or national origin) as a basis for law enforcement decisions related to counter-
terrorism is ineffective in identifying potential terrorists. In addition, profiling can prove
counterproductive because it stigmatises and alienates communities, thus undermining
social cohesion. These negative outcomes can fuel support for terrorism and distrust
towards police. There is no evidence to suggest that profiling is being used by police in
Australia. There is evidence, however, of concern that counter-terrorism laws will lead
to the use of profiling.
Victoria Police members interviewed expressed more favourable views of state-based
counter-terrorism legislation than of Federal counter-terrorism legislation. In relation to
evidence gathering processes and inter-agency cooperation, police members remained
more familiar and comfortable with the state Crimes Act than with Federal terrorism-
related legislation. Around one in ten police survey respondents had operated under
specialist terrorist-related legislation, and most of these were located in specialist units.
All police members in specialist units interviewed noted the complexity of
Commonwealth legislation and its rapid development. Many police noted that this
legislation seemed to be developed in a way that did not directly engage with the needs
of police members working on counter-terrorism in a state-policing context. Members
working in specialist units repeatedly called for the Federal legislation to be simplified
and/or codified and better directed at their needs. They particularly noted that such
legislation had not been developed in consultation with units working at the coalface of
counter-terrorism in a state-policing context. Over 33% of police members surveyed
who had used the legislation considered it barely workable or unworkable. Those who
considered the legislation barely workable or unworkable were largely located in
specialist units with counter-terrorism remits. All respondents from Prosecutions (N=2)
and Forensic Services (N=11) considered it either barely workable or unworkable. It
should be noted that Victoria Police members located in the area of Prosecutions
would not be called upon in counter-terrorism cases where prosecution would be
undertaken by a QC external to Victoria Police. Most respondents who had operated
under specialist terrorist-related legislation indicated it could be improved through
greater simplification and better training. Notably, respondents indicated concern over
inter-agency cooperation, with a majority indicating a need for greater clarity between
state and federal legislation and between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It
is worth quoting at length the comments of one interview respondent:

We did an exercise a year or eighteen months ago, it was Mercury 04. Because
the Federal legislation talks about, like when you’re seizing stuff, swabs and
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 99

evidence and it’s got to be collected as per the Federal Act. And then if you
[put] someone in custody it’s only for four hours, and you’ve got to go for
extensions, and you’ve got to use different forms when you want to do this and
different procedures when you want to do that. And Victoria Police don’t know
those procedures very well, even though you can say all the training, you’re
only comfortable with what you use and I’m pretty sure that we would go with,
if there was a bombing at the American consulate, and two people were killed
in the street and we had some offenders, we’d be charging them with murder.
Cause we know that we are comfortable with the processes, technically,
technically the correct offence is, assuming that we’re able to establish that it’s
politically motivated, would be terrorism under 101 which would mean, it’s not
that we can’t lay the charges, because we are Commonwealth police officers,
for the purposes of the act. We could do it, but we wouldn’t be comfortable
with the time limits, with the different things you’ve got to do, you collect
evidence under a different set of rules. Which would mean if we didn’t obey
those rules, which would mean that the evidence that we collected could be
excluded at the trial. And that’s a major issue for us, so if we collected evidence
under what we’re comfortable with, and charged and did it all per our rules,
we’d be confident that they’d be charged with murder. Murder has life, the
same as terrorism has life, there’s a lot of argument about the need to use that
legislation, and they’ve got to do something to make that a bit more friendly, I
suppose, cause then you can still be prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director
of Public Prosecution, there’s a whole range of issues and we wouldn’t feel
confident with Australian Federal Police doing that investigation.
Interviewer: Why not?
Because we don’t think they have the experience, the people who work on the
joint teams, like we’ve got about seven investigators over there with a
minimum of fourteen years experience. They’ve got some people there who
were out of Barton College two months ago, now, whilst they’re good people,
we have no problem with the people, they all try hard, but none of them have
investigated a murder. It’s like throwing them into the deep end, you couldn’t
do it to them, and there’s a whole range of issues about whether we would just
hand over that investigation to AFP.
Interviewer: How do you see this being solved?
Well there’s a lot of, if there was an incident here where there was loss of life,
bomb in a subway, that type of thing, that’s just recently occurred in the UK,
Victorian Police would take charge of it, not the Federal Police, they don’t have
any people here who could come down, at this stage, they don’t have the people
here and they would admit that themselves.2
Analysis of the changed legislative regime and the policy framework within
which it sits suggests that the Australian Federal Government is focused too heavily
on terrorism as an event rather than the processes that lead individuals to engage in

2
Interviewee F2
100 S. Pickering et al.

and support terrorism. There is a danger that this overly narrow focus may ultimately
fuel support for terrorism by undermining social cohesion. The legislative context
provides a real challenge for community policing which relies on and builds trust
while simultaneously making community policing more important in terms of
preventing terrorism.

Community policing and counter-terrorism policing

The majority of Victoria Police members interviewed and surveyed approached

community policing positively and considered it important for effective policing.
However, there remains some scepticism by a significant minority of police
members towards community policing. Attitudes towards community policing are
heavily influenced by the leadership of individual stations and specialist units.
Consequently community policing often remains ad hoc and not linked to
organisation-wide approaches to working with communities. Community policing
was more clearly articulated and understood by police members located in specialist
units; however, there remained uneven understanding and varying levels of
engagement between communities and different specialist units. There has been
limited dialogue between stations and specialist units as to the value of community
policing in relation to counter-terrorism. Only police members located in specialist
units identified community policing as an important element of counter-terrorism
policing. The key challenges for community policing were identified as a lack of
time and resources.
A significant majority of police considered that the changed security environment
has had a profound impact on the daily work of Victoria Police members. The
changed security environment has presented challenges to police work primarily in
relation to limited resources and their understanding of the nature of the terrorist
threat. The key counter-terrorism challenges in the new security environment were
time, resources and internal organisational issues (including coordination and
interface between areas). Less than a third of police respondents indicated that their
role included a counter-terrorism purpose on more than a monthly basis. Police
members in specialist units had high praise for Multicultural Liaison Officers
(MLOs) and saw them as critical to community relations generally and the counter-
terrorism effort specifically. Importantly, they recognised the burden MLOs carry in
relation to a lack of cultural understanding within stations more generally. However,
there was little evidence of either formal or informal exchange between specialist
units and MLOs.
Police members serving in stations reported little or no operational counter-
terrorism experience. However, they did express concerns over the preparedness of
the force to respond to a terrorist incident and their role in the response. This was
indicative of an overwhelming police concern with responding to, rather than
preventing, terrorism. The major counter-terrorism role of Victoria Police was
considered to be response rather than prevention. Victoria Police members are most
confident of response and recovery capabilities and least certain in relation to their
prevention and preparedness capabilities. While some police members expressed a
(limited) understanding of their role in the prevention of terrorism through their
daily interactions with the community, the majority showed little knowledge of
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 101

basic counter-terrorism prevention issues or the relationship such issues have to

their work.
All members of specialist units interviewed expressed varying levels of concern
over the lack of focus on the prevention of terrorism and the increased focus on
responses to terrorist incidents. This highlighted differences within the organisation
between those who primarily considered their role to entail proactive prevention
(specialist units) and those who saw their role as involving reactive response (police
stations). All members of specialist units interviewed expressed concern over the
potential counter-productivity of some approaches to terrorism held by police and
others. Specifically, many were concerned at how poorly calibrated law enforcement
could compromise the kinds of community policing they have been developing,
often over long periods of time. With few exceptions, Victoria Police members
located in stations did not consider how adverse police interactions can compound
feelings of community alienation and targeting. Members in specialist units
perceived members in stations as having limited resources and understanding of
counter-terrorism, but also having significant potential to contribute to stronger
community relations and hence a better force-wide counter-terrorism policing effort.
However, it is clear that there is limited interaction between specialist units and
stations. This needs to be addressed if the importance of community policing to the
counter-terrorism policing effort is to be communicated to, and understood by,
ordinary members. It is important that this communication goes beyond the
supervisory level to ensure that all members understand the integrated counter-
terrorism approach proposed by Victoria Police.
The culture of the police station had an obvious impact on understandings of
counter-terrorism. Some stations overwhelmingly considered counter-terrorism as
non-core business. While counter-terrorism was overwhelmingly considered an
important issue for Victoria Police as a whole, many Victoria Police members
considered counter-terrorism to be a challenge only for specialist units.
The intermeshing of national security with law enforcement has seen substantial
and unprecedented growth in the size, role, responsibilities, powers and resources of
the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO). Both are recognised as leaders in the domestic counter-
terrorism arena. As a result of different mandates, roles, and histories, these
organisations approach their functions differently from Victoria Police. Victoria
Police is distinct in articulating community policing, social cohesion and rights as
part of its core business (see for example [31]).
Intelligence gathering on potential threats and risk is particularly significant to the
task of preventing terrorism. The best information available about the nature of the
contemporary terrorist threat suggests that while traditional intelligence remains
vital, community intelligence may be more effective and reliable in assisting to map
the contours of the threat than intelligence gained from other sources. In addition,
efforts to prevent terrorism through intelligence gathered via covert or coercive
methods may become part of a dynamic that fuels future threats. Community
intelligence gathering methods built on trust and community engagement do not
present the same type of risk to future security.
The philosophical framework upon which police-community engagement is based
is critical to the successful integration of community policing into counter-terrorism
102 S. Pickering et al.

policing. Community engagement must be aimed at building trust, rather than based
solely on the utility of gathering intelligence. Community engagement around
counter-terrorism should be based on a philosophy of sharing information so that the
flow of terrorism-related information travels both from communities to police and
from police to communities. Community engagement and community policing in the
context of counter-terrorism policing should incorporate a degree of democratic
control over policing. There needs to be a commitment to ensuring that communities
receive information about, and have input into, how information or intelligence
passed on to police is then used.
What emerged from the interviews was that community policing continues to be
ad hoc and dependent upon station leadership. As a result its application and
understanding is uneven. There is much still to be realised for the community
policing approach across the policing organisation. Of the many challenges facing
police when adopting a community policing approach, those relating to culturally
and linguistically diverse communities are often paramount. Police continue to be
challenged by barriers of cultural and religious understanding as well as language,
although some members are increasingly seeking out their own education in
relation to diverse communities, especially in recently-settled communities which
they serve. Time pressures have also limited how police interact with the
community, particularly with regard to the extra time required to ensure
understanding. Specialist officers who work with culturally diverse communities
are often ‘left’ to do much of the police-community engagement which could be
handled by a larger number of officers if their cultural literacy were improved.
These challenges feed into how police perceive levels of trust between themselves
and culturally diverse communities. The findings of the research indicate that for
community policing to be a foundation for counter-terrorism policing there is
significant work to be done on building the cultural literacy of the police, and their
taking the time, to improve the quality of interactions they have with members of
culturally diverse communities. Moreover, there is much organisational work to be
done in improving the understanding of police about how community policing
contributes to social wellbeing and democracy through enhancing the legitimacy
of, and trust in, the police, as well as contributing to broader counter-terrorism
efforts by improving the conditions that support the flow of ongoing community
intelligence.
Maintaining, consolidating and enhancing community policing in ways that
enhance social cohesion is an important counter-terrorism strategy, particularly
where the legislative regime runs the risk of undermining social cohesion and
alienating communities. Ensuring that community policing is integrated into counter-
terrorism policing will involve enhancing democratic forms of policing through the
sharing of information between police and diverse communities. Community
policing that is premised on the one-way flow of information, the supply of
intelligence from communities to police, is likely to be viewed with suspicion.
Community policing in the context of counter-terrorism policing also needs to
ensure that police remain open and interested in intelligence about threats that arise
when communities are targeted as a result of stereotypes about terrorists and
terrorism. Additionally it should work to ensure an expanding level of democratic
control of policing so that communities have input into considering the most
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 103

appropriate type of response to intelligence regarding threats. An understanding of

the dynamics of law enforcement and terrorism makes it clear that the idea of liberty
versus security presents a false dichotomy in the realm of counter-terrorism.

Counter-terrorism training

A minority of police members force-wide considered themselves sufficiently trained

to contribute to Victoria Police’s preparation, prevention, response and recovery in
the face of a terrorist incident. Respondents indicated they were better prepared in
relation to response and recovery than preparation and prevention. Operational
members located in the regions responded with consistently low levels of agreement
that they were sufficiently trained to contribute to the counter-terrorism role of
Victoria Police. Forensic Services reported the highest levels of confidence in the
sufficiency of their counter-terrorism training. Male officers consistently reported
higher levels of confidence in the sufficiency of their training. Senior ranks (above
the rank of Senior Sergeant) reported the highest levels of confidence in the
sufficiency of their counter-terrorism training. This was in contrast to the responses
of those in ranks of Senior Sergeant and below.
This study found that individual police members have higher levels of confidence
in themselves and the organisation in relation to activities designed to respond to and
recover from a terrorist incident. Higher levels of confidence in regards to reactive
capacity are most likely to be a result of familiarity with, and practice in, emergency
management roles. Police had much lower levels of confidence, both in the
organisation and in themselves, in relation to preparedness for, and prevention of, a
terrorist incident. This may be attributed to a lack of organisational direction
regarding what is expected of police in relation to these functions. It is most likely a
consequence of the reliance of frontline officers on specialist units to handle the
terrorist issue, leaving counter-terrorism policing as a non-core item for most police.
It is certainly an outcome of limited understandings of terrorism and an absence of,
or at least inadequately communicated, whole-of-organisation approach. Over-
whelmingly it is a result of counter-terrorism being considered as distinct from
broader policing and organisational imperatives or approaches.

Police-community partnerships and dialogue

Through research it was evident that community policing presented opportunities

and challenges in relation to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD)
communities. The majority of police members rarely have contact with CALD
communities. When police did have contact with CALD communities the primary
challenge was seen to be a lack of time to develop relationships with diverse
communities. Some police members felt inexperienced but most were concerned
with language barriers and levels of cultural, religious and gender understanding.
Additional concerns related to trust and levels of community and police support for
the further development of police-community relations. Overall Victoria Police
members reported perceiving moderate to high levels of trust between themselves
and the broader community. Lower levels of trust were recorded for relationships
between Victoria Police and CALD communities.
104 S. Pickering et al.

One of the most significant challenges identified by Victoria Police members of

working with CALD communities was a lack of community trust. In particular,
Victoria Police members showed some understanding of the difficulties of
developing trust with recently arrived communities who have left regimes in which
the police had been repressive. There is limited evidence to suggest that Victoria
Police members proactively engage in building trust and confidence with CALD
communities. Police members with access to an MLO routinely recorded the
importance of, and their admiration for, MLOs they worked with, particularly in
educating police about cultures, customs and basic language skills. Police faced with
time and resource constraints tended to ‘leave’ issues relating to CALD communities
for MLOs. Over-reliance on MLOs limits the capacity of all police members to learn
from diverse community interactions and may be indicative of inadequate and
diverging police responses to community issues.
In general, Victoria’s culturally and religiously diverse communities display high
levels of respect for and trust in Victoria Police. There is a level of resilience in
Victorian police-community relations that will allow for mistakes to be made in the
course of counter-terrorism operations without any serious breakdown in the police-
community relationship. However, goodwill between police and communities is a
finite resource and could easily dissipate in response to missteps by Victoria Police,
but also to the activities of other agencies or the media. This goodwill is the result of
a generations-long investment in multiculturalism by successive Victorian state
governments in partnership with Victoria Police and community groups. However,
by its nature, it is vulnerable to eroding much more quickly than the time it took to
be established. Community-police goodwill is deeper among communities from East
and South-East Asia as well as among those from Western Europe who have a
longer, mass-presence in Victoria, such as the Greek and Italian communities.
Although levels of trust and respect for the police were also widely evident among
some Middle Eastern and Muslim groups, there are clear signs that these
relationships are coming under strain and will need special attention if they are to
be nurtured and prevented from degenerating to levels that currently characterise
police-community relations in parts of Western Europe, and even other parts of
Australia.
Strains that some Muslim respondents felt had crept into community-police
relations in recent years were not necessarily attributed to the behaviour of Victoria
Police per se. Rather, there was a clear feeling among many Muslim respondents that
federal agencies with counter-terrorism responsibilities had recently begun to assert
themselves in ways that have undermined the rapport established over more than a
generation with Victoria Police. In other words, there is a perception that Victoria
Police are being marginalised in the area of counter-terrorism, and that on this
sensitive issue communities have been compelled to deal with unfamiliar agencies
who have little respect for their culture and feelings and who seem to go about their
business assuming that ‘all Muslims are guilty’. Muslim respondents were clearly
angry at the way they have been portrayed in the media and by political leaders at
the federal level. Some voiced a wish that the Victoria Police would do more to help
protect their reputation, although they were unsure what exactly could be done.
Many attributed what they saw as the excessively belligerent approach to counter-
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 105

terrorism by some federal agencies to the political mood set by the media and
political leaders.
It is also clear that there is a deep respect for Victoria Police among com-
munities of East African and Horn of Africa heritage. Although in these cases the
reputation of Victoria Police was affected by negative experiences with authorities
in countries of origin: the widespread corruption and abuse of human rights by
police and other officials in these parts of the world had fostered a general
suspicion (sometimes bordering on fear) of people in positions of authority. In the
words of one community leader, ‘If you ask an Australian about what they think
of the police they will say “protection”. But if you ask someone who has spent
most of their life in a dictatorship they will say “punishment”’. Community leaders
felt that this will dissipate over time as newly arrived migrants become more
familiar with Victorian culture and society. There was a clear hesitancy across all
communities when it came to directly volunteering terrorism-related information to
Victoria Police. While this was slightly more pronounced among Muslim
respondents, the reason cited by almost all of those who adopted this position
centred on concerns about their privacy and a fear that they might be unwillingly
drawn into subsequent counter-terrorism investigations.
Very few communities felt that they were consulted in the counter-terrorism
policing process. While there was a clear understanding that the matter was one of
high policy and as such they could not be consulted on every aspect of counter-
terrorism policy, there was also a definite feeling of community disempowerment.
Communities expressed a desire for Victoria Police to play a greater role in public
information on counter-terrorism. Different community groups – but especially those
from South Asia and the Middle East – expressed a desire to be informed of their
rights and responsibilities under new counter-terrorism laws. These groups feel,
rightly or wrongly, that the laws are specifically targeted at them and they are
sometimes fearful of inadvertently breaking the law. The focus groups also detected
an extraordinary number of apocryphal and inaccurate assumptions about counter-
terrorism laws. Perhaps the most worrying was a myth circulating among some
young Muslims that the legal conventions governing the use of lethal force within
Victoria Police have been diluted in relation to Muslims. The contributions made by
Victoria Police’s MLOs are extraordinarily highly valued by CALD communities,
although there is a perception that MLOs are overstretched.
Research among a diverse array of Victoria’s cultural and religious communities
served as a reminder of how even when police are undertaking their everyday duties,
they can be inadvertently enhancing the state’s counter-terrorism capabilities. As has
been said many times, combating terrorism is essentially an existential conflict, and
to the extent that over the past generation successive waves of Victorian police have
been committed to their duties in a fair and professional manner they have won
respect from across the multicultural spectrum. Through their actions they have
helped build a reservoir of goodwill that provides a high degree of protection against
the spread of malevolent and potentially dangerous ideologies. At a crude empirical
level, this is borne out by the fact that every successful prosecution of terrorism-
related offences in Australia since 2001 has been made possible only through the
voluntary cooperation of members of the Muslim community.
106 S. Pickering et al.

However, there are warning signs on the horizon. Especially dangerous is the
capacity for Australia’s federal counter-terrorism regime to overwhelm positive
developments at the state level. The importance of multiculturalism as a weapon in
Australia’s counter-terrorism arsenal is under-appreciated by the federal government
and its preference for a hard power-based approach is alienating many young
Muslims. There are also signs that a poorly calibrated approach to counter-terrorism
at the federal level risks generating the very type of social pathologies that
community policing–based approaches have so far managed to keep in check.

A social cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing

This research explored how police and culturally diverse communities experience
and understand the community policing and counter-terrorism policing environ-
ments, as well as the legislative and policy context in which they work and live.
From our research it is clear that in liberal democracies, policing organisations are
faced with a clear choice in how they construct their approach to counter-terrorism
policing. They can embrace approaches that put faith in an elaborate legislative
apparatus and massively expanded powers and other measures which individually
and collectively do not require a major break with historical practices or
approaches to counter-terrorism. Alternatively, they can consider ways to develop
new policing frameworks that include operational imperatives which effectively
pre-empt and respond to terrorist incidents, such that police are trained for critical
and diverse engagement with communities. This engagement proactively builds
social cohesion and undermines the conditions which locally generate terrorism.
Law enforcement may have traditionally felt compelled, or at least most
comfortable, to counter terrorism in similar ways to intelligence bodies or other
law enforcement agencies in countries which have historically endured significant
conflict (such as Northern Ireland or Israel). However, the current moment presents
the opportunity for policing to lead liberal democracies out of the cul-de-sac of
such approaches. This will require great leadership, widespread policing
commitment, and community support.
A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing assumes a commitment
to social inclusion, equality, political accountability and the rule of law. At the heart
of the Social Cohesion approach to policing is a commitment to increasing trust and
legitimacy between police and the community whereby policing fundamentally
contributes to the building of the social, cultural and legal wellbeing of culturally
diverse communities with the express purpose of enhancing a robust democracy.
This approach emphasises the need for trust between police and communities to be
layered throughout diverse communities as well as throughout the policing
organisation. Based on this research a Social Cohesion approach to counter-
terrorism policing would include the following key elements:

& A Social Cohesion approach would be based in a legal and policy apparatus that
does not simply respect or defend human rights but champions the human rights
of all members of society in its operations and engagements. Through vigorously
engaging with the development and further entrenchment of rights cultures,
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 107

police can be important partners in how governments, societies and local

communities increase literacy in, and commitment to, human rights. This
commitment, in a Social Cohesion approach, would be clearly articulated and
specific to the operations of a policing organisation. Police have increasingly
been compelled to increase the accountability and transparency of their activities,
and a Social Cohesion approach requires police to be proactive in their further
democratization – leading rather than simply responding to community expect-
ations of its ethical behaviour.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing would employ special
legislation that is specific, temporally definite and in accordance with the rule of
law and the human rights standards and expectations of a civilian police force.
This would be based on a robust understanding of terrorism as a process that is
both locally and internationally informed. Individual police would be increas-
ingly literate in local and international issues impacting on the diverse
communities they serve. Police would have a clear understanding of the potential
of counter-productive police actions that decrease police legitimacy and
encourage the production of anti-social behaviour generally, as well as the
specific generation of terrorist sympathy and activity.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism would regard policing as an
institution that should be kept to a minimum. However, the quality of its
interface with communities in controlling crime and building social, cultural and
legal wellbeing should be increased. The focus would be on increasing the
quality of police-community interactions whilst also seeking greater police-
community understanding in a wide array of forums beyond crime. Police would
need to be proactive on a continual basis in seeking out, participating in and
developing diverse forums to ensure that a multitude of interactions are possible
and many voices heard.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism would embrace the develop-
ment of increased cultural literacy for all police that drives a diffuse but centrally
guided approach to community engagement. Such an approach would be mindful
of the dangers of ambient policing and of increasing rather than allaying feelings
of individual and community insecurity.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism would affirm the importance of
community intelligence based on intermediate- and long-term relationships
between police and communities – a reservoir of cooperation developed through
multiple points of engagement not only in the interests of controlling crime but
also to build the broader social, cultural and legal health of communities.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing would move beyond
the specialisation of counter-terrorism policing within police organisations and
instead locate counter-terrorism within a community policing approach. This
would work against the entrenchment of pockets of ‘hard power’ within policing
organisations as the main response to terrorist threat. It would also catalyse
police and communities in sharing the responsibility of enhancing the conditions
for a harmonious society, and would not leave the difficult issue of counter-
terrorism to centralised policing units. Through police and community leadership
a Social Cohesion approach would need to resolve the inconsistency of
approaches among law enforcement agencies who engage with the community
108 S. Pickering et al.

on counter-terrorism, through asserting the pre-eminence of the community

policing approaches of local police organisations.
& A Social Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing would be embedded
in police training across diverse curriculum and would not be considered solely
as a specialisation. The primary form of counter-terrorism training would be
aimed at increasing the cultural literacy of police, and awareness and
understanding of local, national and international issues of conflict. A Social
Cohesion approach to counter-terrorism policing would be attentive to diverse
community needs: based on culturally literate policing that has wide
community engagement in daily policing practices as well as deep community
engagement through intermediate- and long-term relationship building in
strategic and everyday partnerships and dialogues.

Acknowledgement Thanks to Springer for permission to reproduce passages published in Pickering,

McCulloch and Wright-Neville 2008.

References

1. Bayley, D. (1999). Capacity-building in law enforcement. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal
Justice, July, no. 123. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
2. Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bennett, T. (1998). Police & public involvement in the delivery of community policing. In J. P.
Brodeur (Ed.), How to recognize good policing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
4. Cordner, G. (1992). Community policing: Elements & effects. In G. Alpert, & A. Piquero (Eds.),
Community Policing, Prospect Heights. Illinois: Waveland.
5. Crawford, A. (1995). Appeals to community policing & crime prevention. Crime, Law & Social
Change, 22, 97–126.
6. Crawford, A. (1997). The local governance of crime: Appeals to community & partnerships. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
7. Edwards, C. (1999). Changing police theories for 21st century societies. Sydney: The Federation Press.
8. Ericson, R., & Haggerty, K. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9. Findlay, M. (2004). Introducing policing: Challenges for police and Australian communities.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
10. Grabosky, P. (1992). Law enforcement and the citizen: Non-governmental participants in crime
prevention and control. Policing and Society, 2, 249–271.
11. Greene, J. (1999). Evaluating planned change strategies in modern law enforcement: Implementing
community-based policing. In J. P. Brodeur (Ed.), How to recognize good policing. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
12. Hahn, P. (1998). Emerging criminal justice: Three pillars for a proactive justice system. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
13. Horgan, J. (2005). The psychology of terrorism. London: Routledge.
14. Innes, M. (2004). Signal crimes and signal disorders: Notes on deviance as communicative action.
British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 335–355.
15. Innes, M. (2004). Reinventing tradition? Reassurance, neighbourhood security and policing. Criminal
Justice, 4, 151–171.
16. Innes, M. (2006). Policing uncertainty: Countering terror through community intelligence and
democratic policing. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 222–241.
17. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). The transformation of policing: Understanding current trends in
policing systems. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 129–146.
18. Kelling, G., & Moore, M. (1988). From political to reform to community: The evolving strategy of
police. In J. Greene, & S. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 1–2). New
York: Praeger.
Counter-terrorism policing: towards social cohesion 109

19. Lambert, R. (2008). Empowering Salafis and Islamists against Al-Qaeda: A London Counterterrorism
Case Study. PSOnline, 31–35. Retrieved Jan 2008 from www.apsanet.org.
20. Loader, I. (2006). Policing, recognition and belonging. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 605, 202–221.
21. McCulloch, J. (2001). Blue army: Paramilitary policing in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne University
Press.
22. Pickering, S., McCulloch, J., & Wright-Neville, D. (2008). Counter-terrorism policing: Security,
community, cohesion. New York: Springer.
23. Ratcliffe, J. (2003). Intelligence-led policing. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends & Issues in
Crime & Justice, 248, 1.
24. Rosenbaum, D. (1992). The changing role of the police: Assessing the current transition to community
policing. In J. P. Brodeur (Ed.), How to recognize good policing: Problems & issues, thousand oaks.
Moore: Sage & Police Executive Research Forum.
25. Rosenbaum, D., Lurigo, A., & Davis, R. (1998). The prevention of crime: Social & situational
strategies. Belmont: Wadsworth.
26. Segrave, M., & Ratcliffe, J. (2004). Community policing: A descriptive overview. Retrieved March
2004 from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/2004–03-policing.html (PDF).
27. Silke, A. (2005). Fire of Iolaus: The role of state counter-measures in causing terrorism and what
needs to be done. In T. Bjørgo (Ed.), Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality and ways forward (pp.
241–255). London: Routledge.
28. Stevens, A. (2004). The roots of war and terror. London: Continuum.
29. Thurman, Q., Zhao, J., & Giacomazzi, A. (2001). Community policing in a community era: An
introduction & exploration. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
30. Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective.
Cincinnati: Anderson.
31. Victoria Police (2006) Business Plan 2006–2007. Melbourne: Victoria Police.