It is in nobody’s interests to have a paternalistic police service patting us on our collective heads when an incident occurs, reassuring us “there’s nothing to see here and we have it all under control” ... until we — later — learn the whole truth.

TASMANIA Police’s apparent strategy of deliberately withholding relevant information from the public in order to not cause undue concern is worth calling out.

The latest case in point is what we chronicle today across pages 4-5 — the dramatic search in central Hobart on Saturday for a man who escaped custody, and the police’s handling of the alerts to the public.

The escape happened about 3.15pm, when Jake Mark Pearce slipped away from officers at the Royal Hobart Hospital after he was arrested for breach of his bail conditions. The resulting manhunt involved dozens of officers and the Westpac rescue helicopter.

Witnesses described large numbers of police officers — including those from the special operations unit — gathering near Macquarie Point and sweeping areas of the city in search of the missing 21-year-old.

The helicopter hovered low over city blocks and the Domain, while police went into the Aquatic Centre to talk to staff. This was an incident clearly of interest and of importance to the Tasmanian public.

But police media only issued a social media post reassuring everyone “there is no need for concern and no risk to the community”. That post has since been deleted. At 5.47pm on Saturday, police released a statement with a photograph of Pearce asking for public help — and stating that the alleged offender had been “sighted in the CBD”.

This is an instance where the response from authorities does not pass the pub test.

It was not until 11.43am on Sunday that the police media unit issued an update — this time revealing that missing peace of the puzzle: that Pearce had escaped police custody. The statement repeated three times that there was no risk to the community.

But if there was no need for concern and no risk to the public, why were so many officers and a helicopter mobilised for the search? And why did police fail to mention on Saturday that the man they were seeking had escaped from custody in the first place?

Deputy Police Commissioner Richard Cowling yesterday issued a statement in response to a series of questions submitted by the Mercury (the way the police media unit deals with inquiries from journalists) by saying priority was always the safety of the public — and that undisclosed “operational reasons” were behind police having failed to reveal on Saturday that the man they were searching for had fled from police.

Now, nobody at the Mercury is an expert at law enforcement. Plenty of people in our police service certainly are. But this is an instance where the response from authorities does not pass the pub test.

And this is not the first time recently that police have deliberately withheld information from a concerned public. On August 16, for instance, the same helicopter was in action hovering low in support of police over North Hobart — next to a primary school. Our inquiries on that occasion were met with an “it’s just a burglary” from police. It was only later revealed that the reason the chopper had been called in was that they were searching for a man who had fled from an alleged aggravated burglary involving four people.

There needs to be a level of trust between the police and the public — and the media is an important conduit between the two. It is in nobody’s interests to have a paternalistic police service patting us on our collective heads when an incident occurs, reassuring us “there’s nothing to see here and we have it all under control” ... until we are — later — told the whole truth.