By Lyndall Barnett
MELBOURNE — The Kennett government is drafting legislation giving wider stop-and-search powers to Victorian police, despite frequent instances of police harassment and violence coming to light. On January 20 Scott Baker, who was picked up, arrested and assaulted by police in Collingwood last year, was declared not guilty of the false charges laid against him. The appeal of Shannon Ewart, a woman who was arrested for writing graffiti and subjected to intense violence while in custody, is yet to be heard.
The most blatant and tragic evidence of abuse of police powers is Aboriginal deaths in custody. As the Committee to Defend Black Rights pointed out in 1991, despite the implementation of the Royal Commission, "in the first two years following the announcement of the commission, another 32 Aboriginal people died in custody". The CDBR likened the actions of police to "government-supported death squads operating in Australia". A recent US government report noted that Aborigines are arrested at 29 times the rate of non-Aborigines.
In Melbourne, police in Fitzroy and Collingwood are notorious for their harassment of the many Koori people living in the area, and of the many (mainly young) people who police consider to look or act "weird". Scott Baker, for example, is regularly stopped and questioned, on pretences ranging from not wearing shoes in public to suspicion of rape. Usually, he's also abused as a "poofter". For identifiably gay men and lesbian women, harassment by police is a common experience.
Kennett's proposed widening of police powers has been opposed by many groups as a violation of civil rights. Police minister Pat McNamara is expected to have the legislation passed in parliament's autumn session. It is expected to increase the power to stop and search; the power to compel names, addresses and proof of identity; and the powers to take fingerprint and blood samples.
The legislation relating to stop-and-search powers is likely to build on the Control of Weapons Act, introduced by the Kirner government in 1990. This makes carrying dangerous items in a public place an offence, and gives police the power to search for prohibited weapons. It is this legislation which allowed dozens of people to be arrested for wearing that notorious weapon, the studded belt.
The new legislation would allow police to stop and search anybody
"suspected of carrying a knife", and will probably discount self-defence as an excuse for carrying a weapon.
Police claim that such expanded power is necessary to combat a "crime wave" involving use of knives in attacks and robberies. Since the Kennett government has placed the Independent Bureau of Crime Statistics under police control, this claim is difficult to assess. But according to the police's own statistics, "major crime" constituted only 1.57% of all reported crimes in the 1990-91 period, and crimes against the person represented only 2.61% of "major crime".
By contrast, 27.14% of reported crimes were "minor offences" or "victimless crimes" such as public drunkenness and indecent language. Given these statistics on how the police spend their time, it is likely that, as Jude McCulloch of the Federation of Community Legal Centres pointed out in a recent Melbourne Age interview, "if police get the stop-and-search power, it will be used to harass people and it won't prevent serious, violent crime at all".
Police also seek the power to compel names and addresses. "Details" of the new legislation, such as whether people have to be suspected of anything before being forced to identify themselves, are, according to McNamara, yet to be worked out. But Lou Schetzer of the North Melbourne Legal Service considers it very likely that it will be modelled on legislation unsuccessfully promoted by police in 1988.
The 1988 proposal rendered the failure to prove identity on police demand, or the supplying of a false name, a criminal offence in itself. The maximum penalty was set at a $1000 fine or three months' imprisonment.
In South Australia, where similar legislation has been enacted, failure to provide identification on demand accounts for almost 20% of charges. Schetzer points out that such legislation further victimises homeless people, young people, low income-earners, pensioners and others unlikely to possess or carry satisfactory identification. It also allows police to build up massive files on individuals. Despite the overwhelming public rejection of the "Australia Card" identification scheme in the mid-1980s, this proposal amounts to much the same thing.
It is expected that police will also request the automatic right to take fingerprints and blood samples. Currently, if a suspect does not consent to samples being taken, police must apply for a Magistrate's Court order and show that the sample would prove the guilt or innocence of the suspect. In the period between January 1, 1990, and September 30, 1992, more than 87,000 Victorians had their fingerprints taken voluntarily. 19,215 refused. Police
bothered to apply for only 150 court orders. The new power thus seems an unnecessary infringement of civil rights. A similar situation exists with blood samples.
This legislation could render society's more marginalised groups more vulnerable to police harassment, and often violence.
A Coalition Against Police Violence has recently been formed in Melbourne, largely in response to the horrific treatment of Shannon Ewart.
On April 27, 1992, Shannon was arrested after writing graffiti against police bashings on the South Melbourne police station and some police cars parked outside it. She was severely beaten and charged with resisting arrest and the assault of seven police officers.
During her four days' imprisonment in South Melbourne police station, she was repeatedly sexually and physically assaulted, kept in the "shower cell" (an icy concrete and metal box with a permanently flooded floor) except when she was taken to hospital in an ambulance to be treated for extensive bruising, and denied sleep.
She was transferred to the Pentridge prison hospital for four days before being sentenced to three months' imprisonment. She was assaulted on two further occasions before being released on appeal bail one month later.
After her bail was granted, she was again assaulted before being permitted to leave the police station, and a South Melbourne officer who was present threatened to bring 30 police to testify against her at her appeal. He also promised that, when she lost her appeal, she would be taken back to South Melbourne police station where she would be made to "think she had it easy last time".
As Shannon's and Scott's cases show, police powers are rarely exercised to protect our civil or human rights. Often (as in the case of police breaking up demonstrations) they are used to actively undermine such rights. The police force is already unaccountable to the community. For Kennett to accord it further power would be a disaster.