The two police officers who have copped the brunt of the fallout from the Corruption and Crime Commission's exposure of the prisoner abuse of a mentally-ill, homeless Aboriginal man, have each been convicted of three counts of assault.
The CCC Inquiry into the use of tasers in the arrest and detention of Kevin Spratt during a week in police and prison custody during 2008 found the man had been tasered by several officers repeatedly, and possibly, as many as 41 times.
During the inquiry some of the longer-serving prison officers moved from the ESG tactical unit, which had deployed tasers before Spratt's transfer to prison. A recommendation was made that officers should spend no more than five years in the unit, with cultural problems flagged in several key prison abuse probes.
Both the prison officers and Troy Tomlin, gave inquiry and court evidence that they were warned that Spratt was a violent man. However, in video evidence Spratt was non-combative and this was noted by Justice Bromfield and DPP James McTaggart.
Spratt told the court his memory of being tasered was limited but he recalled that he had thrown his earring at the WatchHouse counter when getting booked.
The prison hospital discovered shortly after Spratt's arrival that he had a punctured lung, dislocated shoulder and fractured ribs, which are not injuries sustained from taser use.
The two police officers, Troy Gregory Tomlin and Aaron Grant Strahan (45), faced internal police fines and criminal penalties in the protracted and complex matter.
Prosecutors in the court had described the use of tasers against the prone, unarmed, uncombative man as 'inexplicable'. Handing down suspended jail terms against the pair Magistrate Richard Bromfield suggested the policemen's criminal acts constituted a 'gross error in judgment'.
The pair, still employed by the WA Police and now ranked as a Sergeant and an Auxiliary Police Officer, were given 8-month prison sentences, suspended for six months.
Sgt Strahan was fined $3250 and Troy Tomlin, $3800 for repeatedly tasering Spratt.
Another officer was previously caught out by the Perth WatchHouse video, after he had supplied a false statement to the court that claimed Spratt had obstructed the WatchHouse officers. The statement prompted Spratt's (wrongful) conviction and detention for obstruction. Spratt had limited memory of the period and simply pleaded it out.
Two days after the finding police officers again arrested Spratt, and according to The Australian they are now alleging he has committed several assaults. Spratt's lawyer has complained that Spratt has again pleaded it out, without seeking the support of a lawyer and she has asked the court to reject the mentally-ill man's plea.
The two officers promptly launched an appeal .
##UPDATE appeal dismissed.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
So many 'bikie' answers, though the 'bikie' questions are MIA - hmmph, unsettling...
I may be a bit elusive over the next few weeks. Apologies. I will get back to the parallel of the Guantanamo evaluation to Australian detention conditions, soon.
I read this this morning and thought it might be of interest to some of the readers of this blog. This is a very interesting op-ed from Terry Goldsworthy regarding the recent and really quite unique Qld bikie laws. From my past writing regarding the 'anti-association' laws, which by word of explanation for overseas readers - have deceptively been branded 'bikie' laws, I can see that there are quite a few of you who are avid readers on this topic.
I read this this morning and thought it might be of interest to some of the readers of this blog. This is a very interesting op-ed from Terry Goldsworthy regarding the recent and really quite unique Qld bikie laws. From my past writing regarding the 'anti-association' laws, which by word of explanation for overseas readers - have deceptively been branded 'bikie' laws, I can see that there are quite a few of you who are avid readers on this topic.
'Preventative detention', sometimes referred to by much cleverer people than me, as 'pre-emption', is a fascinating erosion of the basic tenets of democracy and the separation of powers (between politics and the judiciary), which Australian life and core values are built upon. The presumption that people are equal before the law, in addition to, the right to a fair trial in which the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, are international legal obligations that Australia's government has long identified as synonymous with its own legal principles.
Tragically and frighteningly, these principles have been abandoned by the various state governments, in the pursuit of 'anti-association' legislation that might possibly stand testing in a High Court of Australia challenge. So far, all these concerning Orwellian legislative measures have failed to meet up to those essential democratic standards in the Commonwealth of Australia's High Court.
Mr Goldsworthy is far more knowledgeable about these issues than I am, of course, and the piece is a very educational update on the current state of some of the most extremist and undemocratic legislation to have ever passed through an Australian parliament. Any erosion of democratic values is deeply concerning considering Australia's dark past of racist policy wielded against refugees, migrants, CALD and ATSI people in past eras.
But, for the purposes of this post, at the heart of the stifling of a much needed accurate description of the problems with these types of laws, is - unsurprisingly and once again - the spin (propaganda) that is being utilized to deliver all information to the public regarding such legislation in mainstream news.
But, for the purposes of this post, at the heart of the stifling of a much needed accurate description of the problems with these types of laws, is - unsurprisingly and once again - the spin (propaganda) that is being utilized to deliver all information to the public regarding such legislation in mainstream news.
For example, Western Australia's proposed 'anti-association' legislation - incredibly - did not even mention the alleged justification for the radical right-wing legislation, 'bikies', not even once. Why not? Why didn't any WA journos ask that question? Similarly, the bill that passed through parliament with bipartisan support, the Criminal Organisation Control Bill - did not mention any criminal organisations. How come? This too, did not feature in the disseminated info/news about the Bill.
Worryingly, this possible undemocratic slip-up in the drafting of the laws, subsequently renders any small group eligible to incur an order, regardless of the purpose for their meeting. They merely need to have two participants, attendees or members, with two past criminal convictions that can be honestly or selectively interpreted (judged by individuals on a case-by-case basis) as having comprised a serious offence.
Drink driving is quite serious - don't you think? How many people from your local church, RSL, bowls/darts club or reading group have had drink driving or mobile phone-traffic offences? Hmmn -I can see it now, "can you step out of your car please madam...?"...definitely an organized crime group there...
The Racial Discrimination Act is currently under review and, in the past, has been suspended to warrant military action against one particular disadvantaged, pacifist minority.
Drink driving is quite serious - don't you think? How many people from your local church, RSL, bowls/darts club or reading group have had drink driving or mobile phone-traffic offences? Hmmn -I can see it now, "can you step out of your car please madam...?"...definitely an organized crime group there...
The Racial Discrimination Act is currently under review and, in the past, has been suspended to warrant military action against one particular disadvantaged, pacifist minority.
AND, despite being marketed as relating to the mysterious bogeyman 'bikie' crime, (which remains a white elephant - unestablished - and, at best, abjectly pales in comparison to domestic violence murder figures of women and children) the bill had provisions to put control orders on youths. In interviews WA 'bikie' spokespersons told me children are strictly prohibited from becoming members of motorcycle clubs. So, if the laws are aimed at bikies - why are there provisions aimed at children at all?
Evidence readily discoverable in the WA parliamentary Hansard suggests (during question time), that this child removal provision pertained to isolating children from a parent who is the focus of an anti-association order - but isn't that just the same in function as the notorious Stolen Generation policy?
The State's odious contention during one recent WA Stolen Generation Supreme Court challenge put forward that it was 'protection' that was at the root of the racist assimilation policy, which saw Indigenous children taken from their family homes to be raised by government officials (the racism inherent in that childhood removal policy, featured in the National Apology in 2008). For some reason, again, strangely, in the mainstream news there were no questions asked by journos about the removal policy facing children of people targeted by an 'anti-association' control order, whoever they might be.
Evidence readily discoverable in the WA parliamentary Hansard suggests (during question time), that this child removal provision pertained to isolating children from a parent who is the focus of an anti-association order - but isn't that just the same in function as the notorious Stolen Generation policy?
The State's odious contention during one recent WA Stolen Generation Supreme Court challenge put forward that it was 'protection' that was at the root of the racist assimilation policy, which saw Indigenous children taken from their family homes to be raised by government officials (the racism inherent in that childhood removal policy, featured in the National Apology in 2008). For some reason, again, strangely, in the mainstream news there were no questions asked by journos about the removal policy facing children of people targeted by an 'anti-association' control order, whoever they might be.
Ominously, the day the COC Bill (2011) was announced, in the state's ONLY daily newspaper, a whole-page op-ed by the Police Commissioner branded Aboriginal boys as Public Enemy no.1. What extraordinary timing?! Statistics lawyers presented to me showed that the information in the very controversial op-ed was incorrect, and that the figure was not escalating, but had remained static for a decade.
I don't believe that any retraction ever appeared in the newspaper from media management or the police, and no WA MSM journos followed up on that controversial op-ed by double-checking his figures - but why not?
It's one thing for media industry recruitment to lack diversity, but shouldn't all journalists be concerned about a clear and obvious erosion of the Fourth Estate, in its role to complement the effectiveness of our democracy? Shouldn't journalists have an interest in consulting all sources, and balancing govt comment? Curiouser and curiouser. ( NB## - long clip below - 10 minutes, don't click on it if you don't want it to load.)
I don't believe that any retraction ever appeared in the newspaper from media management or the police, and no WA MSM journos followed up on that controversial op-ed by double-checking his figures - but why not?
It's one thing for media industry recruitment to lack diversity, but shouldn't all journalists be concerned about a clear and obvious erosion of the Fourth Estate, in its role to complement the effectiveness of our democracy? Shouldn't journalists have an interest in consulting all sources, and balancing govt comment? Curiouser and curiouser. ( NB## - long clip below - 10 minutes, don't click on it if you don't want it to load.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)