Page 4039 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 24 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
lot of people and the Opposition have continually been saying that the original Bill was against young people. But it protects young people. A lot of young people go out, have a good time and get a bit rowdy. They might get a bit too rowdy and might end up in court as a result of an assault or offensive behaviour. It does not look good on the record; neither does malicious damage to property.
It is much easier if the police simply have the power to tell them to move on, and it saves some of those young people or some innocent passers-by getting injured as a result of some drunken melee that might eventuate. I think it is trite to remind the Assembly that young Grant Cameron would not have died had the police had move-on powers then, prior to this Assembly starting. I go now to annex E of the report of 20 April. On 11 November 1989, at 3.45 am, at Weedon Close, Belconnen, outside licensed premises 30 persons were present. The report states:
Police were called ... to a disturbance, including an allegation of assault ... two persons were arrested. While these inquiries were being undertaken about 30 persons had gathered in front of the premises, in two factions. There were verbal exchanges between these factions.
Attending police saw the exchanges develop, threats were made by the factions and the police believed that the use of violence between those factions was imminent. They consulted their duty superintendent, and the persons were directed to move on. The crowd dispersed without further incident. A potentially violent situation involving 30 people was defused.
On 13 November, at 10.00 am, in Garema Place 15 to 20 people were present. The report states:
Police were called to a disturbance and one person was taken into custody. As police were conveying this person away, the remainder of the persons in the area commenced exchanging verbal threats between themselves, and towards police. Police had an apprehension that further violence would occur. The persons were directed to move-on. They dispersed without further incident.
Mr Speaker, I could not use my hands and my toes to count the number of times, when I was a prosecutor, that people were arrested for obstructing police in the execution of their duty. Often people ended up resisting arrest and assaulting police when the police did not have power to disperse people in such a situation. Four or five squad cars would be called, about 20 people would be arrested, and there would be a lot of injured police and injured drunken revellers. With the advent of move-on powers, these situations are becoming less of a problem in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .