By Diana Rickard
DARWIN — At the beginning of November, I spent two and a half days supporting a friend in court who had sustained a wound on the back of his head while being pursued by an overzealous young policeman carrying a regulation large, heavy black police-issue torch.
The decision handed down by the magistrate in the prosecution of this policeman was that there was reasonable doubt that my friend, Shell, had been hit over the head by this torch. In his decision the magistrate also said that on the evidence of police witnesses, there was a belief that a crime had been committed (sticking up posters) and that "justifiable force" might have been feasibly put forward as part of the police case.
Even to posit this alternative is a dangerous precedent. To excuse using a heavy police torch as a weapon on a young man suspected of pasting up anti-violence papers (and justifiably running away from a suspicious police action) borders on the incredible.
But what disturbs me most is the decision to believe evidence (holes and all) put forward by police witnesses protecting a mate.
No evidence was produced to show that Shell had struck his head on any solid substance that might have been waiting to rise up and strike him cleanly on the back of the head without causing any other abrasions. There was also no evidence that he had at any time fallen (or rolled) onto the back of his head.
Minor details of recall become distorted over time. Whether the policeman in question was the driver of the first police vehicle (and just happened to have a torch in his hand when he spontaneously jumped out of the driver's seat — leaving the motor running — to have a quick, friendly chat with someone who was known by the police to be non-violent) or not is not a reflection on Shell's honesty. Where the police torch was dropped, why it was dropped, who picked it up and cleaned it and why — is an issue.
There are several other issues of police reliance on memory and not on procedural taping or transcribing of events. Where was our more peripheral other policeman while his partner was wrestling (according to their statements) with a person suspected of a crime? According to him and others coming later, it was his overzealous partner who (with a damaged knee) radioed a call for help, while kneeling beside/on the victim. There was confusion as to how many policemen escorted a tightly handcuffed, bleeding victim to the paddy wagon and as to when the handcuffs were removed.
If, according to police evidence, the pursuing officer fell over heavily twice with his radio in his belt, why did the said radio not sustain injuries — not even a gravel rash?
Finally, and the most revealing: why was an informal, off-the-cuff, non-recorded, non-witnessed conversation between the police watch commander and a bleeding, troubled and besieged Shell used as deciding evidence of police integrity and honesty, to Shell's discredit?
Even though police (and other) witnesses were produced to vouch for the integrity and honesty of the policeman, no-one was produced by the crown to vouch for the integrity and honesty of the victim of a police attack.
Shell is an extremely honest human being. He, like others in the active peace movement, has fought violence with non-violent resistance as a matter of course.
As our society becomes more violent and oppressive, the peace movement needs to become more organised and effective in supporting those who are oppressed by the violence of those in power.
It is also becoming essential for organised non-violent resistance to be backed up by an effective police monitoring system that honestly and realistically upholds whatever existing positive reputation the police have to a Doubting Thomas public.