Page 2756 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the evidence before me, there is no evidence which supports the constables having reasonable grounds to believing -
sic -
that either of the defendants had in fact engaged in violent conduct, or were likely to engage in violent conduct because obviously that belief as to the likelihood of engaging in violent conduct must be based on some prior conduct by the two defendants or some indication as to what they intended to do.
Even as accepting the police evidence at its highest, as I am required to at this stage of the case, it seems to be insufficient for the purposes of this legislation to form the belief that simply on the basis of what a group - the group behaviour as opposed to the individual behaviour of members of that group.
His Worship went on to find the offence not proven and dismissed the charges.
In the case of Bernard Whalan, again the police attended some night premises in the city. I forget the actual facts. In that case the matter was dropped because a witness had gone to New Zealand. That was the advice that the police gave me. In the case of Bernard Whalan, I understand from the Attorney that a complaint was made. I am astounded to find today that there is still no resolution of that complaint which went from the police internal affairs area to the Ombudsman. I will come back to very real concerns I have about those processes in a moment.
Mr Connolly referred to the essential problem with the Act being a perception that it gives arbitrary powers to the police, and that the police are able to "move people on" without giving a reason. The leading question that Mr Connolly asks is, "Do we wish to leave arbitrary powers with the police?". As he said, in his own words, "We are equipping police with a power seen to be arbitrary, at least". He accepts, I suppose, from a legal point of view, that the perception of arbitrariness is there, if not the law itself making it arbitrary, but it does not. It gives a test of reasonableness to the police constable. Be that as it may, I will take Mr Connolly at his highest and say that it gives an arbitrary power to the police.
This arbitrary power that Mr Connolly refers to replaces, I trust, the many, many detentions, arrests for insulting language, offensive behaviour, behaving in a manner, and all those other ones that used to greatly annoy me as someone interested in civil liberties over the years in this town. I took the view then, as I do now, that, properly supervised and properly managed, this Bill will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .