Legal observers demand police obey law

BY DALE
MILLS

SYDNEY — A group of volunteer solicitors, barristers and law students
set up to monitor police behaviour at demonstrations have expressed serious
concern at the refusal by police to allow the April 2 student anti-war
protest, organised by Books Not Bombs (BNB), to march through city and
the use of “pepper spray” by police against protesters.

The Legal Observers Project (LOP) is writing a report to be published
on April 9 detailing possible breaches of the law by the police at the
April 2 Sydney Town Hall Square anti-war rally and possible claims by protesters
for compensation.

The initial concern of the legal observers was with police threats to
ban the BNB protest from marching. At a meeting between the protest organisers
and police negotiators on March 28, the chief police negotiator said little
except that if an application for a march permit was made, NSW police “assistant
commissioner Adams would not approve it”. This in itself raises issues
of procedural impropriety — making a decision before an application had
been made.

Worse was to come. At 11am on April 2, a legal observer was informed
that police had ignored a report given to them that a demonstrator had
been “punched in the head”.

The most worrying aspect of police conduct at the April demonstration,
however, was the extensive use of undercover police officers, at least
one of whom carried (and used) a concealed weapon. At approximately 2pm,
an undercover police officer used a chemical weapon known as “pepper spray”
against 5-6 young protesters. One legal observer reported that the spraying
was “indiscriminate”.

The attacker then fled the crowd, was followed by one legal observer
and some protesters, and was challenged to prove that he was a police officer
by showing identification, or let himself be subject to a citizen's arrest
for a serious assault.

It was only after the attacker fled into a secret annexe to the Woolworth's
department store building opposite Sydney's Town Hall Square, that a uniformed
police officer confirmed that the assailant was in fact an undercover cop.

Public comments reported in the press as being made by Adams that the
assailant was an undercover police officer who was “backed up” against
a wall and had to use pepper spray to defend himself do not accord with
any of evidence of the incident gathered by the LOP.

Legal observers have spoken with five people affected by the pepper
spray, six witnesses present at the spraying, and have observed a video
of the incident, none of which show the officer being “backed up” against
a wall.

A similar incident occurred between a legal observer and another plain-clothes
police officer. After being informed by a child that his brother had been
detained and assaulted by “a strange man”, the legal observer questioned
the man in the belief that this was an example of racist violence against
a child of Middle-Eastern appearance. The man responded to the legal observer
by saying, “I'm a police officer”.

It was only after threats of a citizen's arrest being made against the
man, that another plain-clothes cop (who showed his identification) confirmed
that the man was a police officer.

It is reprehensible that police officers in plain clothes attempt to
infiltrate demonstrations. Their presence, by their dress and conduct,
after all, is a standing joke among knowledgeable protesters. Indeed, I
had only to put a mobile phone to his ear to flush out the nearest pair
of undercover cops who would just happen to assume a position standing
about 15 centimetres behind me, obviously attempting to eavesdrop on my
conversation.

The LOP is calling on NSW police commissioner Ken Moroney to order an
enquiry, to be held in public, into the pepper spray assault on the student
protesters by the plain-clothes police officer. It is also calling on Moroney
to instruct his officers to obey the law: when a plain-clothes cop says
he or she is a police officer, they must show identification proving that
that is the case.

The use of plain-clothes officers, acting as spies and/or agents provocateurs,
in protest situations is a serious inroad into the civil rights that Australians
have become accustomed to.

[Dale Mills is a volunteer with the Legal Observers Project, Sydney.
Law students, solicitors and barristers who would like to volunteer can
contact him on 0417 498 512.]

From Green Left Weekly, April 9, 2003.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.

From GLW issue 533