Pgr wrote:I recently had a bad experience with a ranger. Can anyone help with the following questions
1. Are Rangers required to disclose they are Rangers when acting in their role.
2. Are Rangers required to clearly show their informs so you know they are rangers.
3. Do rangers have the power of detention.
4. Are rangers permitted to interrogate you.
Fyi I committed no offence but had to endure a very unprofessional ranger with no communication skills
Pgr,
As others have said without knowing the full details of your specific incident.
If you are talking in relation to NSW NPWS staff who hold ‘Authorised Officer’ status (it is not just ‘Rangers’ who hold this authority but may be field officers or other staff position designations, then:
1. It is good practice to state who you are and show your authority card, particularly if you are not in uniform or a marked vehicle, but should do so anyway
2. You do not have to be in ‘uniform’ to use your authority, therefore why it is good practice to introduce yourself and show the person your authority card. ( note:you do not have to give the person your authority card)
3. NSW NPWS Authorised Officer do not generally have powers of detention or arrest, but like any other citizen have powers of a ‘Citizens Arrest’, or detention, however a very messy business and unlikely to be ever used by NSW NPWS authorised or other staff. Generally police are called for such matters if it escalates to this. Many Authorised staff do have the authority in certain circumstances to seize certain items or property, as well as search property/ premises or vehicles in certain circumstances, as well as authority to demand information or that person leave the area or park, with failing to follow a reasonable directive from the authorised officer constituting another offence or breach. This for many authorised officers is both under state NP&W acts and regulations as well as NSW POEO Act and commonwealth EPBC legislation and regulations.
4. NSW NPWS authorised Officers can demand Name and Address ‘Interogate ??’ from persons in certain circumstances particularly if in charge of a vehicle, where failure to provide such details or false or misleading information may constitute another offence. Again those authorised under POEO Act and commonwealth EPBC legislation can ask questions of a person where provision of false or misleading information may warrant a further offence. This is very rarely invoked in the field and is more readily used during a formal interview process where other legal and law enforcement staff are involved and formal recording occurs..
Without knowing the ins and outs and details of your situation it may be a case that you have been 1. approached by someone who is not an authorised officer or staff member or for whatever reason is impersonating one, therefore did not identify themselves appropriately. (Not unheard of). 2. been approached by a very junior or inexperienced staff member who is clearly out of their depth. 3. a staff member who is having a very bad day and has handled the situation poorly (again, not unheard of) or 4. We are only hearing your side of the situation? ( There are always 3 sides to every incident). Most NPWS authorised Officer staff apply the ‘attitude test’, and are trained to approach law enforcement with an educational stance using their discretionary powers as to whether a warning, informal, formal, an infringement or further court or enforcement action is warranted and applied. If people are argumentative or show genuine disrespect for the authorised officer as opposed to being honest and demonstrating genuine ignorance or remorse for the offence that they may have just committed then you are likely to walk away with an infringement or further action than a formal or informal warning.
Again, very hard to provide feedback on your particular issue or situation, but suggest that if you have a genuine complaint as to how you have been dealt with that you approach the local office concerned both informally and or formally in writing, and or the Ombudsman’s Office as others have suggested, but would first consider some of the feedback I have provided above and whether one of this circumstances may apply.
Hope that helps.