Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

awwwright -- "the man " has to pay

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Takamii, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. I like this very much


    So who is the feral now ?

    Anti-nuclear protesters win $700,000 over police treatment

    * From: AAP
    * April 09, 2010 3:25PM

    ANTI-NUCLEAR protesters who were beaten by police, capsicum sprayed and locked in a shipping container have been awarded more than $700,000 in damages from the South Australian government.

    In a judgment in the SA Supreme Court today, Justice Timothy Anderson found the treatment of the 10 people, during a demonstration at the Beverley Uranium mine almost 10 years ago, was degrading, humiliating and frightening.

    The judge also criticised two state government ministers for their comments about the protesters, including Deputy Premier Kevin Foley who called them a bunch of "ferals" who put the safety of police in jeopardy.

    The group, including a girl aged 11 at the time, had sued over their treatment during the May 2000 anti-nuclear demonstration which involved about 100 protesters, claiming they were assaulted, subjected to mental injury, deprived of food and water and humiliated.

    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

    End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

    In 2002, a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) report found one police officer had used excessive force in striking a protester with a baton while another used capsicum spray on a protester who was already injured and posed no threat.

    The PCA also found police were negligent in detaining protesters in a shipping container and that none of the 31 arrests made during the protest were lawful.

    In his judgment, Justice Anderson said the shipping container should not have been used at all.

    "It was degrading, humiliating and frightening," he said.

    "It was an affront to the civil liberties of the protesters."

    "The conditions were oppressive, degrading and dirty, there was a lack of air, there was the smell from capsicum spray and up to 30 persons were crammed into a very small space."

    Justice Anderson said it had also been inappropriate to detain the protesters for several hours when keeping them just for a short while would have taken the heat out of the situation.

    He said some of the action taken by police was heavy handed and unnecessary, particularly in relation to the use of capsicum spray and batons.

    Turning to Mr Foley, Justice Anderson said his comments, which came when the government withdrew from attempts to resolve the case through mediation, were both unreasonable and antagonistic.

    "The comments are one-sided and do not acknowledge the extreme way in which the police dealt with protesters and the circumstances of their detention," the judge said.

    He also criticised Police Minister Michael Wright who had rejected the idea of a settlement because of its potential to undermine the good standing of the SA police and encourage others to sue.

    "It is my view that both ministers, in making these statements, have acted with a high-handed and contumelious disregard of the plaintiffs as citizens of the state with a right to protest, and with the right to be treated according to law if they did protest," Justice Anderson said.

    The judge awarded the plaintiffs, who also included a television cameraman, varying amounts with the largest single payment of $95,100 going to Lucinda White who was assaulted, sprayed and verbally abused before being locked up for about seven hours.

    Outside court she described the police action on the day as outrageous in a civilised country.

    "People have a right not to be bashed, beaten and falsely imprisoned by police," she said.

    "We have a right to protest. I am absolutely stunned this sort of thing can happen in South Australia."
  2. It's a good start but there's no mention of the officers responsible facing criminal charges.
  3. "The man"? ......many LOLs
  4. Pics or it didn't happen. :p

    While I don't doubt there were some heavy handed tactics here, I'd like to see the full story and not just the whinging of a few hippies who got their arses kicked.

    There are always the ones that cry foul when they are mistreated after acting like fools. The S11 protests are a fine example, 'Yes we trashed the CBD and threw bottled piss at people, but the cops mistreated us man.'
  5. So it is justifiable to break the law in order to enforce it?

    We should hold police to a lower standard of conduct, rather than a higher one?

    The end justifies the means?
  6. No not at all... I just want to see the full story to try to understand why they reacted so viciously.
  7. This is a fairly good indication that they'd done nothing illegal.