Force of law By MARK FORBES 2000-10-27 01:05:03 'Move! Move! Move!" shout police, stomping forward on each word, sharply prodding large black batons towards demonstrators with every step. Events accelerate into confused scuffles, demonstrators cling together, screaming "police violence" towards watching media, as baton blows rain down. Young or old, demonstrators are grabbed and dragged, fodder for newspapers and TV stations around the world. Debate over ratbag protesters and police tactics begins instantaneously. It seems only yesterday that the S11 protests disrupted the World Economic Forum at Crown Casino, prompting a tough response from police. But the events just described occurred years earlier, under a different government, when the Richmond Secondary College was blockaded to protest against its closure by Jeff Kennett. This week, the last chapter in the Richmond saga was closed, with police agreeing to a settlement of almost $300,000 for 30 protesters who had lodged writs alleging excessive police force. Now the WEF protest is to be played out in court, with the same lawyers who represented the Richmond 30 drawing up writs for at least 50 people injured outside Crown Casino. The parallels between the incidents raise issues of how democracy is policed in Victoria. And the WEF action is set to reignite debate over unresolved questions about the Richmond action, questions police had hoped the confidential settlement would bury. Just what legal right do police have to use force against demonstrators, and how far can demonstrators go to disrupt the lawful behavior of others? Should police be legally responsible for the force they use, and who can be trusted to investigate allegations against the police? The curly questions are not just for police to answer. At Richmond, the Kennett government was determined to crash through the protest, raising the issue of separation of power from its law-enforcement arm. The Bracks Government, with closer ties to community groups but desperate to appear "business-friendly" and tough on crime, is certain to find its dealings with police over the WEF under the legal microscope. Police minutes released under freedom of information reveal that those organising the Richmond baton charge knew that "at a high political level there was a desire to have the matter resolved quickly". The day of the charge, Monday December 13, 1993, had been nominated by ministers as the last day renovations could begin if they were to reopen a new school in January, as they wished to do. Inside the besieged WEF meeting on Monday, September 11, this year, Premier Bracks was himself surrounded by angry businessmen, demanding action against protesters who had blockaded many delegates wanting to enter the building. Privately, government insiders concede that the pressured atmosphere may have clouded the Premier's political judgment, leading to his description of demonstrators' behavior as fascist. The government was desperate for the forum to proceed on the Tuesday, with organisers threatening to cancel. Neil O'Loughlin, deputy commissioner in charge of operations at the forum, has denied that pressure from the government or WEF organisers influenced the tougher police tactics. "I had meetings (on Monday night) with people from the forum and some government officials and we discussed administrative matters," O'Loughlin told The Age. "But never at any time did they have anything to say in relation to how we should do things operationally." On the Monday, more than 10,000 protesters had blocked most WEF delegates from entering in the face of a low-level police response. In a loss of face for authorities, demonstrators had gleefully surrounded Western Australian Premier Richard Court's car as one of their number jumped on its roof. From early Tuesday it was clear that the rules of engagement had changed. Police ranks had swelled. Demonstrators like software engineer Julian Kelsey, buoyed by Monday's barricade, had arrived early to block the casino's Queensbridge Street entrance. Just before 7am, Kelsey says in his legal statement, police buses arrived. "The police behind us moved aside to reveal police with batons and visored helmets running towards us," he said. "They reached down and knocked us about the head. I saw fists beaten down into faces, my own hair was grabbed and I was punched in the face." The scuffles lasted nearly 15 minutes, leaving Kelsey with cracked ribs and a broken wrist, allegedly from baton blows. Breaking the blockade, police brought delegates in by bus, but violence flared again at 7.30pm when they needed to get out. Radiographer Julie Bain had also noticed the tell-tale swelling of police numbers in Queensbridge Street. "The riot police leapt up on to the barricade and over on to the protesters on my left, beating down with batons," she said. "The only thing I was able to do was put my head down in response to baton blows to my head. I was shoved down and backwards. The police shouted 'Move, move, move'. But it was impossible to respond." Bain was not one of the 20 protesters and media representatives treated in hospital that night, but the next day an X-ray revealed a crushed fracture of the fingertip incurred, according to her statement, trying to protect her head from baton blows. Marcus Clayton, the lawyer compiling at least 50 claims from the WEF protest, says injuries included a fractured sternum, a crushed vertebra, broken arms and cracked ribs, along with stitches for head wounds. Police maintain that the force used on the Tuesday was reasonable and provoked by the aggressive actions of demonstrators. Chief Commissioner Neil Comrie defended the tactics the next day and said "disgusting" protesters had spat on police and assaulted members of the public. "It is regrettable that Victoria Police had to use measures to achieve this outcome, but those measures were dictated by the protesters and I have no regrets about any of the decisions," Comrie said. At Richmond, police also claimed that their use of force was reasonable. Subsequently, an ombudsman's inquiry criticised police, stating that less forceful methods were available to them. "The standard of reasonable force was exceeded," the inquiry found. "I believe that the force with which picketers were prodded by batons was excessive." The inquiry recommended further action against police, and eight officers were charged with disciplinary offences by Neil O'Loughlin, citing carelessness in the discharge of duties. Six years later, just weeks before the WEF protests, O'Loughlin quietly dropped the charges he had laid. After the news leaked out, he said he acted because of the time that had elapsed since the incidents. "Justice delayed is justice denied," he said. Ombudsman Barry Perry said he was concerned about the dropping of the charges and would investigate the decision. Now Perry has announced an inquiry into the WEF protest, citing concern over the Tuesday night baton charge. He said he would examine the "operational decisions" behind police actions and investigate numerous allegations of excessive force. As part of their case against police, lawyers will argue that the force used was unreasonable and unprovoked. More significantly, they will claim that police have no legal right to use force to disperse protesters. "The force used here was clearly excessive," Clayton says. "Just look at the numbers taken to hospital. With a third of the entire police force present, it's difficult to argue that the only thing they can do to get delegates in and out of a conference is to beat people up." Although police have the power to use force to prevent a breach of the peace and allow people to go about their lawful business, the power applies only to making an arrest, Clayton says. Dr Jude McCulloch, a lecturer in police studies at Deakin University and critic of "paramilitary-style" policing, agrees. "The law says police can use reasonable force to arrest those committing summary offences, such as obstructing, but it doesn't say you can use force to prevent people committing offences. There is no clear power to disperse protesters using batons." The growing use of civil litigation is an effective way of making police more accountable, McCulloch says. With more claims, and significantly more severe injuries at the WEF than at Richmond, potential payouts are large, Clayton says. He has signalled that high "punitive damages", designed to persuade police to change tactics, are likely to be sought. Clayton points to Comrie's statements after the Ombudsman's inquiry into Richmond, when he says: "I think we've got to equip ourselves better to deal with an unexpected violent confrontation. Certainly where you have a static demonstration which is taking place over a long period of time, baton charges will never occur again as long as I have got anything to say about it." The Victoria Police operation procedures manual outlines crowd-control tactics. It states: "The success of any operation will be primarily judged by the extent to which the use of force is avoided or minimised." According to Clayton, these goals were abandoned at Richmond and again, seven years later, at the WEF. He says the government and police should "pause for thought" after the Richmond settlement. "Many Australians have fought for the right to demonstrate, peacefully," he says. "These cases raise the whole question of people's democratic right to protest around issues they regard as important." This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/20001027/A9553-2000Oct26.html -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
