- IBAC probe continues into Ballarat officers despite Victoria Police finding
- By Tammy Mills
- 24/01/2016 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Rambo ( 5 articles in 2016 )
IBAC is investigating claims of excessive force by Ballarat police officers
The state's anti-corruption commission will pursue two Ballarat police officers accused of excessive force against vulnerable women in their custody despite Victoria Police internal investigators finding no evidence of criminal conduct.
The two officers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have had their suspensions lifted after a review of the allegations by the police Professional Standards Command.
The force watchdog found in December that the alleged conduct of the officers, a man and a woman, was not criminal.
The finding may put Victoria Police at odds with the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission, which says its investigation into the allegations is ongoing.
But IBAC's investigation, dubbed Operation Ross, is also a broader probe. The commission is investigating if human rights violations occurred, and if there is a culture of excessive force at the Ballarat station, as well as assessing the force's internal reporting systems.
And despite the police finding of no criminal conduct, the officers may still be charged with disciplinary offences.
"The review did find a number of poor decisions were made in the management of a prisoner, and as such the matter has been referred to local management in Ballarat for consideration of discipline and training needs," a police spokesman said.
Operation Ross was launched by IBAC last March when it was notified by Professional Standards of an allegation of excessive force during the arrest and detention of a vulnerable person at the station. It led to a probe into previous complaints regarding three other vulnerable people with incidents captured on CCTV footage.
One allegation was that officers kicked and stamped on a mentally unwell woman as she lay handcuffed on the ground inside the Ballarat police station.
This allegation, among several others, came to light in a Supreme Court hearing in August. Since IBAC announced it would investigate the allegations by way of a public hearing, the officers, backed by the Police Association, have been fighting to keep their identities secret. Their appeals to the Supreme Court, and then the Court of Appeal, have been dismissed.
In the September Court of Appeal hearing, IBAC Commissioner Ted Woodward told the court the duo needed to be questioned publicly because it was an exceptional case.
There had been more excessive-force complaints at Ballarat than in other police stations in the state, he said.
But union secretary Ron Iddles said in a statement to members last November that public examinations expose officers to the risk of being tried in public before they are charged.
"In our opinion, public hearings do not provide procedural fairness, and in essence act contrary to the presumption of innocence," he said.
The officers have now turned to the High Court, which granted them leave to appeal on February 2.
It will be the first time IBAC has been taken to the High Court.
The public examinations, which were planned to take a week and examine up to 15 police officers, are on hold.
Source: https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-probe-continues-into-ballarat-officers-despite-victoria-police-finding-20160122-gmbzqm.html
As discussed in a previous blog, the vast majority of court hearings in Australia are open to the public – which is important to promote transparency in the justice system.
But two Victorian police officers who are facing multiple allegations of using excessive force against women want their corruption hearings to be hidden from the public.
Funded by the Police Association (ie the taxpayer), the officers are taking their case all the way to the nation’s highest court, arguing they should not be required to give evidence at a public hearing.
The officers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are believed to have worked at Ballarat police station.
The High Court is now tasked with determining whether the Independent Broad-Based Anti Corruption Commission (IBAC) has power to compel public hearings.
Background to the Case
The officers are alleged to have assaulted vulnerable women in a series of separate incidents from 2009 to 2015.
The most concerning allegation – which we previously reported on – is that in January 2015, the officers kicked and stomped on a 51-year-old mentally unwell woman while she was handcuffed. CCTV footage allegedly depicts the officers forcibly strip-searching the woman, before kicking her left hip, standing on the back of her legs and stomping on her right calf.
The woman was held in custody for 16 hours – four times the usual holding period of 4 hours – was not given a blanket for over seven hours, was not offered a change of clothes, and was told by police to drink from her cell toilet.
The woman had been arrested for being drunk in a public place.
In a separate incident in 2010, a woman went to Ballarat police station to lodge a complaint about the way police had treated her son. She was allegedly told to leave and arrested when she refused.
And in 2009, a another concerned mother who attended the station to enquire about her arrested son was allegedly placed in a chokehold and pushed out of the station.
The allegations were referred for investigation by IBAC, the Victorian agency tasked with ‘preventing and exposing public sector corruption and police misconduct.’
It is customary for IBAC to hold public hearings in order to promote transparency and accountability. But the officers sought an order from the Supreme Court last year to have their hearing conducted in secret, as a public hearing would ‘completely trash’ their reputations.
The Victorian Supreme Court refused their request and ordered the officers to give evidence at a public hearing, finding that this was in the public interest.
But their hearing has been put on hold until the High Court decides whether it should be heard publicly.
The Court is due to hear the case on the 2nd of February.
Should IBAC Hearings be Public?
There has been much debate about whether the officers’ hearings should be made public.
On the one hand, Police Association spokesperson Ron Iddles argues that they should be kept private because: “…Public hearings, do not provide procedural fairness, and in essence act contrary to the presumption of innocence”.
It is interesting to hear police speak about the ‘presumption of innocence’ when they regularly charge people with criminal offences on little evidence and immediately release information through a variety of means suggesting their guilt. Indeed, the concerted police campaign for tougher bail laws, dilution of the right to silence and greater powers in a range of areas – including powers of arrest – are all contrary to that very important presumption.
As academic Jeremy Gans points out, police have a vested interest in wanting these kinds of hearings to be hidden:
“They would be very keen to ensure it doesn’t become a regular thing that cops [who are] subjects of a criminal investigation can be publicly questioned.”
There is a strong public interest in transparency when it comes to allegations of serious police brutality, particularly given the seemingly-endless incidents of police corruption that are coming to the public’s attention with the proliferation of camera phones and CCTV.
Law enforcement officers who are funded by the taxpayer to uphold and enforce the law should be expected to exercise their duties responsibly – and many believe that corruption proceedings should not be hidden from the public.
The two officers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have had their suspensions lifted after a review of the allegations by the police Professional Standards Command.
The force watchdog found in December that the alleged conduct of the officers, a man and a woman, was not criminal.
The finding may put Victoria Police at odds with the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission, which says its investigation into the allegations is ongoing.
But IBAC's investigation, dubbed Operation Ross, is also a broader probe. The commission is investigating if human rights violations occurred, and if there is a culture of excessive force at the Ballarat station, as well as assessing the force's internal reporting systems.
And despite the police finding of no criminal conduct, the officers may still be charged with disciplinary offences.
"The review did find a number of poor decisions were made in the management of a prisoner, and as such the matter has been referred to local management in Ballarat for consideration of discipline and training needs," a police spokesman said.
Operation Ross was launched by IBAC last March when it was notified by Professional Standards of an allegation of excessive force during the arrest and detention of a vulnerable person at the station. It led to a probe into previous complaints regarding three other vulnerable people with incidents captured on CCTV footage.
One allegation was that officers kicked and stamped on a mentally unwell woman as she lay handcuffed on the ground inside the Ballarat police station.
This allegation, among several others, came to light in a Supreme Court hearing in August. Since IBAC announced it would investigate the allegations by way of a public hearing, the officers, backed by the Police Association, have been fighting to keep their identities secret. Their appeals to the Supreme Court, and then the Court of Appeal, have been dismissed.
In the September Court of Appeal hearing, IBAC Commissioner Ted Woodward told the court the duo needed to be questioned publicly because it was an exceptional case.
There had been more excessive-force complaints at Ballarat than in other police stations in the state, he said.
But union secretary Ron Iddles said in a statement to members last November that public examinations expose officers to the risk of being tried in public before they are charged.
"In our opinion, public hearings do not provide procedural fairness, and in essence act contrary to the presumption of innocence," he said.
The officers have now turned to the High Court, which granted them leave to appeal on February 2.
It will be the first time IBAC has been taken to the High Court.
The public examinations, which were planned to take a week and examine up to 15 police officers, are on hold.
Source: https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-probe-continues-into-ballarat-officers-despite-victoria-police-finding-20160122-gmbzqm.html
Police Want Corruption Hearings to be Private
As discussed in a previous blog, the vast majority of court hearings in Australia are open to the public – which is important to promote transparency in the justice system.
But two Victorian police officers who are facing multiple allegations of using excessive force against women want their corruption hearings to be hidden from the public.
Funded by the Police Association (ie the taxpayer), the officers are taking their case all the way to the nation’s highest court, arguing they should not be required to give evidence at a public hearing.
The officers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are believed to have worked at Ballarat police station.
The High Court is now tasked with determining whether the Independent Broad-Based Anti Corruption Commission (IBAC) has power to compel public hearings.
Background to the Case
The officers are alleged to have assaulted vulnerable women in a series of separate incidents from 2009 to 2015.
The most concerning allegation – which we previously reported on – is that in January 2015, the officers kicked and stomped on a 51-year-old mentally unwell woman while she was handcuffed. CCTV footage allegedly depicts the officers forcibly strip-searching the woman, before kicking her left hip, standing on the back of her legs and stomping on her right calf.
The woman was held in custody for 16 hours – four times the usual holding period of 4 hours – was not given a blanket for over seven hours, was not offered a change of clothes, and was told by police to drink from her cell toilet.
The woman had been arrested for being drunk in a public place.
In a separate incident in 2010, a woman went to Ballarat police station to lodge a complaint about the way police had treated her son. She was allegedly told to leave and arrested when she refused.
And in 2009, a another concerned mother who attended the station to enquire about her arrested son was allegedly placed in a chokehold and pushed out of the station.
The allegations were referred for investigation by IBAC, the Victorian agency tasked with ‘preventing and exposing public sector corruption and police misconduct.’
It is customary for IBAC to hold public hearings in order to promote transparency and accountability. But the officers sought an order from the Supreme Court last year to have their hearing conducted in secret, as a public hearing would ‘completely trash’ their reputations.
The Victorian Supreme Court refused their request and ordered the officers to give evidence at a public hearing, finding that this was in the public interest.
But their hearing has been put on hold until the High Court decides whether it should be heard publicly.
The Court is due to hear the case on the 2nd of February.
Should IBAC Hearings be Public?
There has been much debate about whether the officers’ hearings should be made public.
On the one hand, Police Association spokesperson Ron Iddles argues that they should be kept private because: “…Public hearings, do not provide procedural fairness, and in essence act contrary to the presumption of innocence”.
It is interesting to hear police speak about the ‘presumption of innocence’ when they regularly charge people with criminal offences on little evidence and immediately release information through a variety of means suggesting their guilt. Indeed, the concerted police campaign for tougher bail laws, dilution of the right to silence and greater powers in a range of areas – including powers of arrest – are all contrary to that very important presumption.
As academic Jeremy Gans points out, police have a vested interest in wanting these kinds of hearings to be hidden:
“They would be very keen to ensure it doesn’t become a regular thing that cops [who are] subjects of a criminal investigation can be publicly questioned.”
There is a strong public interest in transparency when it comes to allegations of serious police brutality, particularly given the seemingly-endless incidents of police corruption that are coming to the public’s attention with the proliferation of camera phones and CCTV.
Law enforcement officers who are funded by the taxpayer to uphold and enforce the law should be expected to exercise their duties responsibly – and many believe that corruption proceedings should not be hidden from the public.
Source: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-want-corruption-hearings-to-be-private/
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here