Leaked police report: Criminals exploiting bail monitoring system by ‘foiling’ ankle bracelets

Share this article

Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read.

Criminals are putting tinfoil over electronic monitoring bracelets before committing smash and grabs, police say. Photo / NZME

Criminals being electronically monitored are “regularly” wrapping tinfoil around their ankle bracelets and reoffending, according to an internal police report.

Examples of the practice, known as foiling, include a man leaving his home undetected and allegedly going to his ex-partner’s where he lay in wait and held her against her will, assaulting her multiple times, threatening to kill her, and attempting to stab her.

Youths have also been foiling their bracelets before doing ram raids and smash and grabs.

The police risk assessment report, EM Bail - “Foiling” and Monitoring Limitations, says public safety will continue to be compromised because of a “combination of heightened demand and systemic monitoring limitations”.

The electronic monitoring (EM) regime for community-based offenders and bailees was “easily circumvented by motivated individuals”, through foiling, it says.

“The public and judiciary are likely of the opinion that offenders on EM are closely monitored at all times, this cannot confidently be assured by the current system.”

Corrections say while foiling is a “significant issue” internationally, the police report contains “a number of significant inaccuracies”.

The report says some “interim risk mitigation options” were available but they would place an “increased demand on police response”.

“In the long term, there is a need for cross-sector evaluation as to what volume or risk profile of offender can be safely managed in the community and what level of resourcing is required to do so.”

The Department of Corrections administers and monitors people on EM bail.

The report says 1809 people were on EM bail across the country, up from 510 in 2018. The increase coincided with a 197 per cent rise in breaches.

Frontline police in Canterbury said they were regularly encountering youth offenders doing ram raids who they believed were on EM bail, the report says.

“What was of concern was that although these people were subject to EM bail, police had not been notified by Corrections that they were breaching their conditions.”

Further investigations revealed the suspects were foiling their tracking devices.

“In doing so, they were able to leave their place of residence undetected and reoffend,” the report says.

The report contained several photos of youth offenders with their tracking devices wrapped in tinfoil.

Corrections, police and the Ministry of Justice met in July and discussed concerns about electronic monitoring.

The report summarises several key issues including that the number of people being monitored electronically had “grown faster than the level of staffing at Corrections and they are struggling to meet demand”.

The software used was “world-leading technology” but was “sensitive” and generated thousands of alerts that were checked and cleared manually.

“This takes time and leads to delays in detecting genuine breaches.”

About 7500 alerts were pending assessment at the time of the meeting.

Priority response was given to a certain group of “high risk” sentenced offenders and parolees: EM bailees did not have an assigned priority, the report alleges.

But Corrections told the Herald on Sunday this was incorrect and said everyone on EM bail was considered high risk. People with registered victims and people who had been identified tampering with their monitoring devices were also prioritised, with specific staff assigned to manage high-risk alerts to ensure they could always be actioned urgently.

Foiling generated an alert that was similar to the regular intermittent loss of signal alerts, which Corrections receives “a lot of”, the report says.

Corrections had set a time threshold for the first alert of 80 minutes from loss of signal, but that did not necessarily mean the alert would be checked at that time because of the volume of alerts received.

“People on bail with a geofenced boundary around a victim can easily circumvent it before an alert is received and triaged (if one is received at all),” the report says.

“This has multiple implications on bail address considerations - specifically within the same geographical area of a victim.”

Court representatives told the meeting they believed members of the judiciary were “likely unaware of the extent of monitoring limitations”.

The report included four examples of people foiling their tracking devices.

The man who allegedly foiled his tracker and went to his ex-partner’s house where he allegedlytried to stab her left the scene as police arrived and eventually cut off his monitoring device. The EM bail team was not aware he had left his bail address until contacted by police. The man was found three-and-a-half weeks later.

The others were youths, as young as 14, who committed ram raids and smash-and-grab style burglaries.

In relation to risk management of public safety, the report said in recent cases it appeared likely that bailees and sentenced offenders were breaching their conditions and reoffending undetected and/or unreported by Corrections.

“Coupled with an increasing appetite to manage higher risk violent offenders on EM, this issue presents an immediate risk to public safety,” the report says.

“It is imperative that relevant elected representatives and members of the judiciary are fully aware of the limitations of the current monitoring regime and how easily circumvented it is.”

In relation to police staff, high-risk offenders, needed to be monitored closely, the report says.

“The ability for individuals to leave their bail address undetected presents an immediate high risk to staff safety. The consequence of a staff member being injured or killed by an offender breaching their EM undetected would be severe.

“Many of our people are aware of these issues and have regularly voiced their dissatisfaction and frustration with the current situation. Without visible action, it is likely that this dissatisfaction will manifest itself in unauthorised public and media commentary.”

While Corrections was “principally responsible” for the administration and compliance monitoring of EM bail, police had an “equal responsibility” in ensuring public safety.

“Department of Corrections are aware of the limitations of their monitoring system, and it will be vital to work closely with them in partnership to help them mitigate the risk to public safety. However, if not done in a constructive way, this problem could cause strain on the relationship between both agencies.”

The report scored the risk as high and said there were several options to help combat the risks identified in the report, most of which would result in an increased demand on police staff.

The options included decreasing the time for loss of signal alerting from 80 minutes and briefing the judiciary regarding the problem and the risks it presents to victims when considering bail or community-based sentences.

In response to a series of questions by the Herald on Sunday, Inspector Andrew Fabish, the director of deployment at police, said the report was an “internal document”, produced to help consider how they might “best deploy resource to keep communities safe”.

“Some of the points in the report do not take into account the national picture of electronically-monitored bail and the ongoing shared work by police and Corrections.”

The increase in demand for the monitoring and the enforcement of people on bail was known, Fabish said, adding the police and Corrections were working together to “streamline processes” and reduce the number of people offending while on bail.

A new police national bail co-ordination role, which would focus on EM bail, would be embedded with Corrections from early September.

“The impact of this role and associated support staff from police will enable smoother connections between both organisations to better monitor those on EM bail, assess the risk of those who have absconded, and respond accordingly,” Fabish said.

“Some people on bail, including EM bail, will inevitably attempt to breach their conditions, and no monitoring system is 100 per cent foolproof.”

People interfering with the signals on their device were reported by the Corrections monitoring team to police. Following a risk assessment and prioritisation, police made inquiries to locate them and put them before the courts.

Corrections, who were unaware of the report until contacted by the Herald on Sunday, said it contained “a number of significant inaccuracies”.

National Commissioner Leigh Marsh said every instance of non-compliance with EM bail was referred to police, including when a defendant was a few minutes late home from an approved absence.

“The practice of foiling is not new. It is a significant issue for law enforcement jurisdictions internationally. Some people go to great lengths to attempt to manipulate or circumvent restrictions placed on them.”

Corrections was able to identify when people were interfering with their tracker in an attempt to circumvent their monitoring, Marsh said.

“When we identify someone acting in this way, we prioritise any alerts received relating to them and provide information to police to support their enforcement.”

Marsh said it was incorrect to say breaches were not being identified and responded to as required, or that the extent of people’s non-compliance with EM bail cannot be accurately assessed, as the report alleges.

Every person subject to electronic monitoring had a set of “rules” in Corrections’ system which aligned with the person’s level of risk.

When an alert was generated, staff determined the action required, which was dependent on the risk profile of the person, with all high-risk alerts addressed as a priority.

Actions included staff contacting the person or their family directly, dispatching a field officer to the person’s address or location, and/or contacting police if non-compliance has been confirmed or there are safety concerns for any person.

Marsh said the number of people subject to EM bail had increased from 495 at June 30, 2017, to 2345 at June 30, 2023.

In response to the increasing number of people subject to electronic monitoring, Corrections had been “actively recruiting and retaining electronic monitoring staff”. The attrition rate had halved in the past 12 months.

Corrections had a “significant amount of work” completed and under way to improve the efficiency of EM processes and to ensure alerts representing genuine breaches, and alerts for the highest risk people, were responded to first. This included ongoing work with the police.

EM bail was jointly managed between Corrections and police and required a person to be remotely monitored via GPS 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Corrections carry out an assessment for the court about the defendant’s suitability for EM bail and the technical feasibility of their address for electronic monitoring.

A judge in court decides whether electronically monitored bail will be granted, informed by Corrections’ assessment and information from police, including victims’ views.

Ministry of Justice chief operating officer Carl Crafar said the ministry was aware of the report.

“We have no comment on it at this stage.”

Sam Sherwood is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers crime. He is a senior journalist who joined the Herald in 2022, and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.

Share this article

Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read.