A recent incident in Sydney has sparked intense debate and raised crucial questions about police conduct and the use of force. The violent clashes between protesters and police during a rally against the Israeli president's visit have left many experts disturbed and disappointed.
Let's delve into the details and explore the perspectives of those involved.
A policing expert from New South Wales, who was present at the rally, has described the police response as "disappointing" and believes that the violent encounters could have been avoided. Law professor Luke McNamara witnessed the protests outside Town Hall in Sydney's CBD, where demonstrators gathered to oppose Isaac Herzog's Australian tour. Disturbing footage emerged, showing police officers using excessive force, including punching protesters and deploying pepper spray at close range.
But here's where it gets controversial... The Premier, Chris Minns, defended the police actions, calling them "proportionate." He also justified the controversial restrictions imposed on the protesters, which effectively prevented them from marching from Town Hall to the state parliament.
McNamara, however, argues that the violence was a direct result of the unreasonable conditions set by the government, which "quarantined" the protesters within a police containment line. He believes that if the government had allowed protesters to exercise their lawful right to protest, the confrontation might have been avoided.
And this is the part most people miss... McNamara, an expert in policing and law, emphasizes that physical force should be used by police extremely rarely during protests, and only when a crowd is out of control and engaging in or threatening violence. He questions the necessity of the level of force displayed in the footage, particularly the repeated punching of a man and the forceful removal of a group of praying Muslims.
The Premier, on the other hand, maintains that police were confronted by individuals attempting to breach the containment line and that the full context of each incident should be considered before judging the officers' actions.
Associate Professor Dr. Vicki Sentas, another policing expert, describes the available footage as a "case study in disturbing and unnecessary police violence." She also highlights concerns about poor and dangerous crowd control.
So, where does the law stand on this? Sentas explains that each incident needs to be reviewed, but the overall police response appears to fall short of the legal criteria for lawful use of force. She suggests that there are credible allegations of excessive police force, and an investigation by the NSW police watchdog, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), would be appropriate.
The NSW police use of force manual, which outlines the guidelines for deploying weapons and "hands-on" policing, is not publicly available. However, a copy was published by the LECC in 2023, stating that police "should use no more force than is reasonably necessary." The manual emphasizes that officers are personally responsible for the force they use and must be able to justify it, adding that force should never be used as punishment.
Vincent Hurley, a former senior detective with the NSW police, suggests that the context leading up to each violent clash needs to be considered. He acknowledges the complexity of the situation and the challenges faced by police, but also questions whether the use of force was excessive in some instances.
The manual on the use of pepper spray, released under freedom of information laws, provides guidelines for its deployment, including protection of human life and control of violent resistance. However, the manual's section on "weaponless control" is vague, allowing for punches and strikes, which can be used to achieve compliance or distraction.
A recent court case sheds light on how to assess the reasonableness of force used by police officers. In 2018, a 16-year-old boy was subjected to excessive force, including being tasered, hit with OC spray, and struck with a baton multiple times. One of the officers involved was charged with common assault, as it was argued that six of the strikes were not reasonably necessary.
A 2022 Supreme Court decision described the officer's actions as a result of a "red mist of rage," a loss of self-control due to frustration and anger. The former officer, who had left the force by the time of the hearing, argued that the strikes were a proportionate response to the youth's outburst and were intended to bring him back under control.
Ultimately, the officer was cleared of the charge.
This incident raises important questions about the balance between maintaining public order and respecting the rights of protesters. It also highlights the need for clear guidelines and accountability when it comes to police use of force. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think the police response was justified, or do you believe there needs to be a reevaluation of the tactics used? Feel free to share your opinions and engage in a respectful discussion in the comments below.
