June 2001: Ombudsman's Report on Police Action at the World Economic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VICTORIA Investigation of police action at the World Economic Forum demonstrations September 2000 Report of The Ombudsman June 2001 Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed. No. 80 Session 1999/2001 June 2001 The Hon B A Chamberlain MLC The Hon A Andrianopoulos President Speaker Legislative Council Legislative Assembly Parliament House Parliament House MELBOURNE MELBOURNE Dear Mr President and Mr Speaker, A meeting of the World Economic Forum was held in Melbourne between 11 and 13 September 2000 at the Crown Towers Hotel. The event attracted several hundred delegates from around the world. The meeting of the World Economic Forum was the focus of protest action by many groups and individuals. The protests were loosely organised around a group which called itself the S11 Alliance. There were numerous clashes between demonstrators and police over the three days. I subsequently received over 100 written complaints alleging, among other things, that police used excessive force against demonstrators. In accordance with Section 86I of the Police Regulation Act 1958 I now present a report of my investigation of these complaints. Yours sincerely B W Perry OMBUDSMAN 1. INTRODUCTION The report in The Age of the clash on September 11 between demonstrators and police referred to the allegedly indiscriminate use of batons by police and the throwing of missiles by demonstrators. Demonstrators claimed to have been assaulted by police and that a police car had been driven directly at them. One demonstrator was quoted as claiming to have been kneed to the stomach and another claimed to have had his glasses broken when he was hit about the head a number of times. In the following days the clashes became more violent and heated. In an incident which The Age described as a “battle”, police were reported to have charged at 200 demonstrators, knocking many to the ground with batons. One demonstrator had her wrist broken, others received “severe blows” causing injury. It was claimed that many police were not wearing identification badges. The Age later published a letter from a witness who described the demonstration before the outbreak of violence as being “relaxed and amiable proceedings”. The writer went on: “Without further warning, more police congregated and immediately attacked with batons, beating [demonstrators] and making arrests. … Violence appeared to be much in excess of that necessary to make arrests. …resistance and assaults that followed were entirely a response to unwarranted and sickening use of force by police”. Another witness wrote to The Age describing the use of force by police as “thoroughly unjustified” and expressed his “complete disgust at the behavior of police”. He went on to argue that the “unjustifiably violent” police action had, “struck a blow against two basic principles of democracy, namely the right to express dissent and the proper exercise of law and order. The cheapening of 2 authority by its radical misuse brings not only the police but also the law itself into disrespect.” Some days later, a very graphic picture of the second clash appeared on the front page of The Age. It showed police swinging batons in an overhead motion at demonstrators who were clearly in retreat, or who had fallen to the ground. An editorial called for an enquiry into the incident. * * * * * Many readers may have assumed that the above refers to demonstrations at Crown Casino, Melbourne, on 11 – 13 September 2000 during a meeting of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). In fact, it is an account of reports and letters which appeared in The Age describing student demonstrations against Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war which occurred on 11 and 16 September 1970, precisely 30 years to the day before the WEF demonstrations which are the subject matter of this investigation. It hardly needs to be said that the similarities are striking. There are allegations of sudden and violent baton charges by police against passive demonstrators, counter-allegations by police of the discharge of missiles, allegations that police failed to wear identity tags, a police car allegedly driven into demonstrators, and emotional claims in the following days that these clashes signalled the end of free speech and democracy as we have known it. The latter clash described above, the more violent of the two, has passed into folklore as the ‘Waterdale Road Riot’. I raise this at the outset to make one simple but very important point which has become increasingly obvious to me in the course of this enquiry into complaints about the manner in which police dealt with protesters at the W.E.F. demonstration: “globalisation” and all that goes with it undoubtedly presents new problems and challenges, but there is nothing at all new about clashes between protesters and police. 3 2. THIS INVESTIGATION. 2.1 THE EVENT. I do not think I need to describe in detail the event which was the focus of the demonstrations which have led to this report. The World Economic Forum, which is a private organisation based in Switzerland, conducted a forum in Melbourne on 11- 13 September 2000. The event attracted several hundred delegates from around the world consisting mainly of business leaders and government representatives. The meeting became the focus of protest action by many groups. The protests were loosely organised around an alliance which called itself S11 (September 11). There was a considerable build up to the event with a great deal of media speculation about the possibility of violent clashes between demonstrators and police and there were frequent references to the violent anti-globalisation demonstrations in Seattle and Washington. The WEF and the protests took place over three days. The Crown hotel / casino complex in which the WEF was held was surrounded with concrete barriers topped with steel mesh. These barriers normally serve as protection from flying debris during the Melbourne Formula One Grand Prix. There were openings left at a number of strategic points around the barricades to allow passage in and out of the casino area. These openings, which I shall call gates, were closed off with plastic barriers which were about one metre high and which could be filled with water to weight them down. Approximately 2400 police were rostered to be on duty in two shifts around the clock for the duration of the WEF meeting (about 1800 on day shift and 600 on nights). It was the biggest police operation seen in the state of Victoria for many years. Estimates of the numbers of demonstrators attending the protest vary, but it is clear that the demonstrations were well attended by citizens from all walks of life. 4 2.2 FUNCTIONS/TASK OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN THIS INVESTIGATION. I wish to make an explanation at the outset regarding the scope and purpose of this report. This document does not purport to be a report of an investigation of everything that happened minute-by–minute over the three days of protests during the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Crown Casino on 11 – 13 September 2000, nor a report of every clash or contact between police and the public with judgments regarding the propriety of each police action. The statutory task of the Ombudsman is to investigate complaints of police misconduct. I received numerous complaints about police action at the WEF but, as I will explain below, relatively few of them have raised specific allegations of misconduct by identifiable police members. Those which have, will be investigated, and a response will be made directly to the complainant addressing the specific issues, as is the case with all complaints to the Ombudsman which are of a type capable of investigation. Overwhelmingly, the general thrust of complaints received in the wake of the WEF is an expression of concern or outrage at police actions and tactics, with the majority of complainants referring over and over to the same broad issues and the same specific incidents and examples of alleged police misconduct. A number of complainants who were on the receiving end of police action expressed the view that they were not so concerned to ensure accountability of the individual police members who engaged in the allegedly improper action as they were to ensure accountability of the decision makers upon whose orders they were, presumably, acting. These complainants were, for reasons I will discuss elsewhere, more concerned that I should look at the ‘big picture’ of police tactics and decision- making rather than attempt to investigate the circumstances of their own particular situation. Many other complainants were not directly affected, being bystanders or having merely seen television coverage of the event, but nevertheless complained of police conduct and urged this Office to take investigative action. 5 Section 86I of the Police Regulation Act 1988 provides, in effect, that the Ombudsman may at any time cause a report on any matter arising in connection with complaints against police to be laid before each House of the Parliament. Given that the broad issue of police action during the WEF demonstrations remains a matter of very real public concern requiring a timely response by the Ombudsman, and given the focus of a substantial proportion of complaints on the wider issues, this report to the Parliament adopts the ‘big picture’ approach. 2.3 SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVES ON POLICE ACTION AT THE W.E.F. This investigation touches on issues which are extremely subjective. The rights and wrongs of the existence and purpose of the WEF, the desire by some to host the meeting of WEF in Melbourne, opposition in general terms to corporatisation and globalisation, and the very act of publicly demonstrating and protesting are all ideas and actions loaded with individual motivation, belief and commitment.