Observations from Refugee Solidarity Action with Refugee Action Collective - 22 May 2020
Background - the protest and COVID-19 laws
We fielded a team of three legal observers at the refugee solidarity action held in Kangaroo Point on the afternoon of 22 May 2020. The action has been held every Friday over the past couple of months, outside of a motel where 120 asylum seekers are being detained indefinitely. During the current public health emergency, detention is a serious health risk. The men being held are unable to practice social distancing, and people continue to come and go from the detention centre. Arbitrary and indefinite detention is an even more serious mental health risk, and contrary to International Human Rights Law and the Refugee Convention. Many of the men being held in the centre were evacuated under the “Medevac laws”, and see no end in sight to their detention.
Members of the community have been complying with COVID-19 public health directions while exercising their freedom of political communication, by choosing to engage in exercise in proximity to the detention centre, while holding signs and expressing solidarity. With restrictions easing and directions changing from week to week, the form of the action has adapted. However, the police presence has been excessive and the response unjustified.
Under the Public Health Act, police are appointed as “emergency officers”, giving them vastly expanded discretionary powers. However, these powers are to be exercised only where an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to respond to the declared public health emergency.
Our observations of police activity
Our primary concerns related to right to protest and this event mainly consisted of the following points. See below for more detailed notes on our observations.
Overactive and excessive police presence
Police presence increasing difficulty to comply with social distancing
Failure to provide reasons/a lack of clarity when giving directions, issuing move on orders or infringement notices
An appearance of a deliberate targeting of “organisers”
Unprofessional and inappropriate comments made
Tendency to escalate rather than deescalate interactions
Policing with unlawful grounds
Providing information that appeared to be false, without base or arbitrary
Observations in full
Impeding social distancing:
There were 20 police officers present at the action, all within a 100m area that features narrow footpaths.
At various times they formed clusters, blocking the footpath and the passage of pedestrians, lined either side of the road, and generally caused an obstruction.
One person was fined for staying on a roadway longer than necessary, as they attempted to stand back from police and maintain distancing.
Police made minimal attempts to socially distance from members of the public either when engaging with them, or when moving around the space.
We perceived that the primary difficulty in maintaining the required 4m2 space per person was caused by the excessive police presence.
Lack of explanation for directions:
Emergency officers do have discretionary powers to move people on. These powers are to be exercised in reasonable response to the declared public health emergency.
We witnessed a number of directions being issued, and two people were detained subsequent to refusing to comply.
No reason was given for directions. No warning was given that failure to comply with the direction would be an offence. Directions were not given in calm and reasonable terms and did not appear to be given in response to any specific action that constituted a public health risk.
The first direction was given to someone fined in previous weeks and identified as an ‘organiser’. This direction was given around 4.30pm, just as people were beginning to arrive. There were very few people present at this stage.
The direction was issued in the following terms: *pointing up the street* “500 metres that way, one hour.” Immediately following this, the officer responsible walked away from the situation, visibly angered. Another officer stepped in. When the individual requested a reason for the direction, they were detained by police.
The second person detained was given a direction to move 500m away for the next hour. Just prior, they were carrying a tape measure and were measuring the distance between police and another member of the public, in a bid to draw attention to the police’s own non-compliance with social distancing. The police officer grabbed the tape measure.
A second person, dressed similarly and also carrying a tape measure, was required to provide their name and address to police.
Lack of clarity in directions and other interactions:
During multiple interactions, but notably the two involving issuing of directions, one officer would issue a direction or engage in a conversation before becoming visibly irritated and walking away. Another officer would then step in and issue some further direction or statement.
Where members of the public were pushing back and requesting reasons for directions, or asserting their rights under the law, multiple different police officers would step forward to be involved in the conversation. This created an environment of inconsistency and the appearance that many of the police lacked confidence in what the relevant laws actually were. It further supports a conclusion that the number of police present was excessive and unnecessary, where one person might be handled by up to six different police in the space of 5 minutes.
Varying explanations of the law were given to different people, including a perceived inconsistency between whether “walking with signs” was permissible, or whether “holding a sign indicates that you’re not here for essential purposes” and was not permissible.
Targeting of ‘organisers’
Police consistently targeted those individuals wearing hi-vis.
Police used their powers to require a person’s name and address at least 10 times throughout the afternoon.
They specifically sought out anyone wearing hi-vis, using a megaphone, or seen to be providing information to others at the action, to request their name and address.
Unprofessional and inappropriate commentary:
Attendees report the following interactions occurred:
“One police officer said to me, ‘that’s very revealing’ while gesturing at my outfit. When I expressed that that was an inappropriate comment, she stated words to the effect, ‘no, it was a compliment! Don’t get angry!’.”
Another officer was seen to tell a protestor who explained they were visiting friends, that “you have no friends, go home.”
Assertion of “unlawfulness” of protest
At 5.30pm, the police attempted to move people on because they deemed the event to be over. Multiple different police said words to the effect:
“This is an unlawful protest” “This is an unauthorised protest”
“It’s time to go home everyone, move on. Come on, it’s 5.30.”
“You’ve had your opportunity, it’s time to go home now”
“You told us this finished at 5:30 so that means you have to leave.”