While retired Assistant Commissioner Peter Freestone and I were personal assistants to the Commissioner, we were given a pretty clear run on anything that had been suggested to improve the lot of operational police officers.

Over time it became apparent at most police stations in the state that if a recognised police photographer and later a crime scene officer was not available to take photographs of persons charged, the detainee would not be photographed at all although fingerprints were taken when it was lawful to do so.

The late Al Higgs, then Officer in Charge of the Photographic Section, was reluctant to allow anyone other than recognised police photographers to take photographs mainly because of the anticipated 'stuff-ups'.  My recollection is that he felt that the answer was more police photographers and crime scene officers. He realised that this was not possible and also that it would never be possible to cater for the smaller centres where persons were being charged on a regular basis. With some reluctance he agreed to a trial of a Canon 'Sureshot' camera and my recollection is that it was an instant success. Somehow more funds were made available to purchase more and more of these cameras and a frame was made up by the Allied Trades Section at the old Police Depot to hold names/numbers and ensure that the right distance between the offender and the camera was maintained.

Had Peter, Al and myself, been made to follow the chain of command where reports would have been exchanged over this issue, it is probable that it would never have got off the ground. As can be realised, however, quite quickly police officers statewide were given the means by which they could take and place on record for the benefit of their colleagues photographs of the people they were charging. When you think about it, it was not rocket science—just sanctioned actions by police officers who cared about policing in this vast state.