from the age

Protesters, police both under fire for G20 behaviour

 Kenneth Nguyen
May 15, 2007

THE anti-G20 protesters started it, with deliberately provocative behaviour. But that is no excuse for police officers who later used excessive force against other, mostly peaceful protesters.

That is the verdict of the Federation of Community Legal Centres’ human rights observer team, which today will release its report on last November’s anti-G20 protests, which led to widespread violence across the city.

According to the report, assembled from testimony by 28 observers, the bulk of the violence began on the Saturday morning of the G20 conference, when some protesters engaged in "numerous acts of confrontational and violent behaviour towards the police", including throwing missiles, physical assaults, property damage and verbal abuse, in the area bounded by Swanston, Flinders, Spring and Bourke streets.

The report praises police for initial "restraint in the face of deliberately provocative actions by some protesters". "From 11.10am on the Saturday, when protesters first breached police barriers, police command were seen to be encouraging the use of force as a staged option, rather than as a first response, which is to be commended," it says.

But from the afternoon onwards, police used excessive force on numerous occasions, including overhead baton strikes targeted at protesters’ heads and faces. Much of the violence was directed at protesters who posed little or no perceptible threat to officers’ safety, the report says.

"At the barricades, a police officer took his baton all the way behind his back … and with a full swing hit a protester on the right of his temple," wrote one observer of an incident on Saturday afternoon at the corner of Collins Street and Alfred Place. "The protester was bleeding significantly … he fell back onto a woman and as a result she suffered a sprained ankle."

Another observer reported seeing a man standing alone in Exhibition Street after protesters had vandalised a police truck.

"This man was not threatening to the police in any way," the observer wrote. "The man was struck on the legs with a baton by a police officer. He was knocked to the ground. The police officer hit him about once more … members of the public who were clearly not demonstrators began screaming in distress and asking the officers to stop."

In March, it was revealed that people allegedly injured by police in the November violence had received confidential sums. Recipients included bystanders, tourists and elderly protesters.

While acknowledging the unacceptable behaviour of many protesters, the observer team wrote that "police authorities cannot justify or rationalise abuses by pointing to the poor conduct of some protesters".

The team’s report contains seven recommendations to police involved in future protests. Among other things, the team says police should adhere to liaison agreements with protesters and attempt to negotiate with groups before escalating their crowd control techniques.

Police should also provide assistance to injured persons as soon as possible during protest events, even if the person has been injured as a result of police action, the team says. "Rights to democracy and peaceful protest are fundamental to our society. The police response to protests can either undermine or strengthen our democracy," said Hugh de Kretser, executive officer of the Federation of Community Legal Centres.

 http://communitylaw.org.au

from the heraldsun 

G20 police too rough - claims

The Police Association has rejected claims members used excessive force against peaceful protesters at Melbourne’s G20 conference last November.

The association’s Victorian secretary Paul Mullett has called for those claiming otherwise to put their evidence on the table or "shut up".

"Let’s have them put that evidence on the table. I think all the film footage demonstrates that a very small group were there to only apply violence to either police officers or ordinary members of the community," Senior Sergeant Mullett said.

His comments come after a report released today by Victoria’s Federation of Community Legal Centres (CLCs) criticised the behaviour of police and protesters during violent demonstrations that resulted in several arrests and injuries during the conference of international finance ministers.

The report said human rights observers (HROs) noted police generally exercised a high level of discipline, but were also seen using excessive and unwarranted force.

Peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders were targeted by police, the report said.

But Snr Sgt Mullett said it was police members who were treated "appallingly" by protesters who were there with the sole intention of inflicting violence.

"Let them put the evidence on the table, the film footage at this stage doesn’t demonstrate that," he said.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court was full to bursting today, and many supporters of the G20 arrestees and their family stood on the edges of the court or outside in the hallways. Many more gathered outside to demonstrate their support for the arrestees as Magistrate Sarah Dawes presided over the committal mention.

The morning was spent dealing with minor bail negotiations being settled and in discussing the viability of the evidence brief supplied by police. Magistrate Sarah Dawes, whilst commenting on the “extensive” police resources that are obviously being used toward the case, requested that the prosecution provide a hard copy (previously only provided in digital format) of the evidence brief to all of the arrestees. Defence lawyer Marita Altman drew laughs and a spontaneous round of applause by suggesting that she would only require one brief for her four clients, in order to ‘cut down on trees’.

Importantly highlighted was the massive amount of property still confiscated by police in their massive over-reaction to the relatively minor property damage that occurred during protests against the illegitimate Group of 20 (G20) that met in Melbourne last November.

Defendant Sina Brown-Davis was also threatened by a security guard and the clerk of courts that she may be forcibly removed from the courtroom if she refused to remove a Torres Strait Islander flag from her shoulders. Ms Brown-Davis calmly stated her right to display the flag and opted to remain wearing it in the courtroom.

Repressive police tactics were further demonstrated in the afternoon when Salver detectives went to extraordinary length to attempt to fabricate evidence and allow them to arrest and detain Akin Sari without bail. Mr Sari having left court to get a sandwich whilst awaiting the surer of his bail; detectives sought to have him arrested immediately and denied bail. Receiving a very cool reception from the magistrate, they hurriedly changed their story and requested that instead they change the bail conditions back to the excessive condition that Sari report to police three times weekly. Magistrate Sarah Dawes told police that their use of the court in such a way was “offensive” and that they were wasting the court’s time. Mr Sari chose to represent himself and successfully made a mockery of the police prosecutioner, and attempted to call witnesses so that he could prove the police witness was a liar, when the magistrate told him it was ‘unnecessary’ as she had ‘already made up her mind.’ The police application was flatly denied and police reprimanded for their reprehensible use of court resources and time.

The struggle to defend political protest continues.

from indymedia

G20 riot accused in court

Dozens of protesters are staging a vigil outside a Melbourne court in support of four people accused of rioting at last year’s G20 summit.

About 30 supporters crowded outside the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, holding a large black banner reading: "Defend political protest - Drop the charges".

Sunil Menon, Daniel Jones, Timothy Davis-Frank and Daniel Robins, all from NSW, were arrested in dawn raids across Sydney in March.

The four men are facing a raft of charges including aggravated burglary, riot, affray, unlawful assembly, criminal damage and conduct endangering persons.

It follows the violent protests that marred the G20 summit of the world’s financial leaders on November 18 last year.

The men are due to appear in court for a committal mention today.

Let’s turn out to offer solidarity to all our mates:

Court starts at 10am, but people will be filing in well before to meet up with lawyers etc.

So - people should be there:
Friday 11th May
9:30am
Magistrates Court
233 William Street
Melbourne

chill out and movie at rmit after

So just to clarify for everyone what is actually legally going on on Friday - (please correct me if i somehow got this wrong, but i’m pretty sure its a-ok!)

It’s what is called a committal hearing - bascially all what will happen is that the court will set a date for the Committal mention. Defence lawyers may have put in a form stating what witnesses they intend to call and police/prosecution may contest this. No-one is required to put in a plea.

The next stage - a while down the track is the Committal mention.
Committal Mention
At the committal mention accussed are asked to put in a plea.
If you plea guilty there will be another date set for the hearing of a guilty plea, and a penalty will be decieded.
If you plea not guilty - a date is set for a contest mention

Contest mention
On this day the magistrate wants to know from you and the police what the main points of disagreement are and the number of witnesses. The informant should be there as well as a police prosecutor. The magistrate will work out how the case can be heard faster by getting you and the police to agree on as much as possible.
The magistrate may give an indication of the penalty you may get if you plead guilty. If your defence to the charges does not seem strong, you will be given an opportunity to reconsider your plea. If you have been charged with more than one offence, the police may consider dropping some charges if you plead guilty to others.
I think but am not sure - that this give the defence lawyers a chance to cross examine some prosecution witnesses.

You can choose at this stage to either continue pleading not guilty or to plead guilty. If you plead guilty a date will be set for a hearing of a guilty plea
If you continue to plea not guilty a date is set for the final hearing

Final hearing
this is a full blown trial, witnesses giving evidence, being cross-examined etc.

Also, be aware there is normally a whole bunch of behind the scene stuff going on the whole time as well with lawyers meeting with accussed and consulting with the prosecution. Bail can also b challanged at any stage in these proceedings.

For further reading on the whole court process check out -
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/upload/cl.your_day_court.pdf
(its a little dif in our case, becuase some of the offences are Couny Ct offences, but bascially the same)

taken from melbourne indymedia 

In the aftermath of last November’s protests against the G20 summit in Melbourne, Victorian Police have conducted a massive operation against individuals allegedly involved in the three day mobilisation. Under the banner of Taskforce Salver, dozens of houses have been raided, undercover snatch squads have been used to grab people from the streets, and photos of individuals deemed ‘persons of interest’ have been published in newspapers and on Crime Stoppers. At the time of writing, over 35 people have been arrested and charged with offences including riot, affray and conduct endangering persons. Some of these charges carry sentences of up to ten years imprisonment. The Police operation over the last few months suggests disturbing shifts in the policing of protest and dissent. Particularly, the response to the G20 mobilisation highlights the dangerous relationship between ‘community policing’ and more authoritarian tendencies within the Victorian Police force.

Compared to the policing of the demonstrations against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in 2000, the police response to the G20 protest has been markedly different. When tens of thousands of people converged at the Crown Casino five years ago to successfully disrupt the summit of the World Economic Forum, police responded with a massive display of violent force. Unprovoked charges, overhead baton strikes and outright brutality left scores of demonstrators injured, many of them seriously. In the lead up to the G20 protest, Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon publicly made it clear that the policing operation this time was not going to be a repeat performance. Instead, she employed a range of tactics including: a centrally controlled and staged increase in police force ‘appropriate’ to the context; low barriers instead of high security fences around the summit site; and the use of ‘crowd safety officers’ whose role was to circulate amongst demonstrators handing out cards recommending the suitability of alternate protest venues which were, not surprisingly, out of sight of the G20 delegates, inner-city businesses, and pretty much everyone else in Melbourne.

Nixon’s ‘softly, softly’ approach fits within the model of ‘community policing’ which has been advocated by the Victorian Police command since the early 1980s while facing ongoing resistance from the bulk of the Police rank and file. Studies conducted in the 1990s showed that community policing continued to be viewed by the majority of officers as primarily a public relations exercise. Instead, rank and file officers have tended to support the more authoritarian approach advocated by the powerful Police Association. The tension between these two approaches – community policing and authoritarian policing – is in turn deeply rooted in the ongoing power play between the Police Association and the Victorian Police command.

The recent policing of protests such as the G20 needs to be seen within the context of this struggle within the Victorian Police force. Increasingly, the approach to the policing of political dissent is being shaped by a dangerous combination of elements from both of the tendencies within the force. As Jude McCulloch has argued, community policing has become the ‘velvet glove that covers the iron fist’ of increasingly repressive and authoritarian policing in Victoria. While this has long been evident in over-policed Indigenous and working class communities across the state, the G20 mobilisation and its aftermath provides a case in point of the dangers of this twin-bladed approach.

Based on a community policing framework, Nixon’s ‘softly, softly’ approach hinged on containing the mobilisation. Protest was to be allowed, so long as it remained non-contentious, passive and preferably out of sight. Given these parameters, a confrontation between police and protestors was always going to be highly likely. While there is a wide diversity of opinions amongst protestors regarding tactics, a belief in the need for direct action has long been a hallmark of progressive social movements. And the space for action offered by the community policing approach simply does not allow this.

As it happened, there were attempts by demonstrators to breach the police cordons and disrupt the G20 summit meeting on the first day of the mobilisation. Clashes with police ensued, and it quickly became clear that the Chief Commissioner’s approach did not enjoy the support of the rank and file officers who were there. Nixon had been scheduled to appear at a fundraising dinner that Saturday evening, performing a rendition of ‘It’s Raining Men’, no less. Instead, she was forced to cancel her appointment and rush to the barricades to appease her surly troops.

It would appear that in the face of rank and file unrest, a green light was given for police to utilize all the force at their disposal for both the remainder of the mobilisation and the days and months following. Certainly, there appears to have been a significant and rapid turn around in police tactics. When a small group of protestors gathered at the Melbourne Museum the next day – where G20 delegates were enjoying a little cultural respite from the hard work of summit negotiations – police launched without warning into an unprovoked baton charge. One woman was so badly injured that she required hospitalisation.

The authoritarian policing tactics have continued since. A round up of protestors began on the morning of the 18th, with snatch squads grabbing people off the streets. One man, Drasko Boljevic, was snatched by unidentified men, thrown in the back of an unmarked white van and held for hours. Not only did he have no idea who his assailants were, it later transpired that he had not even been present at the protest. Dozens more have faced intimidation and harassment, regardless of their degree of involvement in any violence. In the backlash against Nixon’s approach, the Police Association has decryied the ‘lack of appropriate resources’ given to officers, and the ‘grave OH&S dangers’ they faced. And in a style that ex-Queensland Premier Joh Bielke-Peterson would be proud of, it has even gone so far as to suggest a blanket ban on the right to protest. Unsurprisingly, mainstream media commentators and politicians have jumped into the fray, bemoaning the decay of law-and-order and going all out to demonise those involved in the mobilisation as violent thugs.

Regardless of the debate over the use of property damage, the policing of the G20 and the continuing actions of the Salver Taskforce should be a cause for concern for everyone who believes in the need for grassroots movements to organise in opposition to the neoliberal agenda being pushed by institutions such as the G20. The twin-bladed approach of community policing and authoritarian tendencies, arising from the tensions and power struggles within the Victorian Police force, has potentially grave implications for the right of ordinary people to dissent. The space for protest is shrinking for us all. As we come up against the barrage of neoliberalism, militarism, environmental destruction, racist border controls and draconian IR legislation, the right to protest is something we all need to defend.

Victoria Stead and Shane Reside

Arena Magazine
April–May 2007