LAND FORCES International Land Defence Exposition, Australia’s premier arms dealer convention, will move from Brisbane to the Melbourne in 2024. The Brisbane protests in 2022 produced a conflict between police and demonstrators as to the right of public assembly. The assembly outside the Brisbane Convention Centre on the 6th October 2022 was an authorised public assembly because organisers had taken the trouble to lodge a notice of intention under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 to hold a public assembly outside the Brisbane convention centre on that day.
Some court cases that arose from the Brisbane (Meanjin) event in October 2022 are still in the courts. One was adjourned today till June 2023, nine months after the charge was laid. Police prosecutor Sanghyun Koh told the court he had sufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to prove defendant David Sprigg contravened a direction under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act s791 (2). Part-time magistrate Judith Daley pointed out to the prosecution that David SPRIGG is charged with a minor offence. She asked Prosecutor Koh if he would drop the charge. The magistrate also inquired as to whether the police disputed that the defendant was part of a peaceful assembly. The prosecutor said ‘no, there is no dispute about that‘.
The Police Case
Police say that David SPRIGG was standing in Merivale Street between Glenelg and Russell Street South Brisbane on 6 October 2022. This is incorrect. He was standing underneath the Convention Centre. They say he was obstruction trade. Wrong, the place was virtually deserted. They say that under s791 (2) of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act, the defendant contravened a police direction given by senior Sergeant Matthew Thompson namely “to immediately move 100 metres from the Brisbane Convention and Entertainment Centre and not return for a period of 12 hours.” Police claim that this direction had precedence over the the defendant’s right to peaceful assembly. The prosecutor does not contest that it was a peaceful assembly.
Given the amount of police and courts wastage of time dedicated to this simple charge of ‘disobey direction’, it is worth having a look at this argument by police. Police claimed that the defendant did not have ‘a reasonable excuse’ for obstructing a driveway into the BCEC. But that is the nature of a public assemblies and marches, they take up space used for other purposes. Police, acting for the arms dealers convention at BCEC, had every opportunity to apply to the court to prohibit the assembly.
If the police commissioner wanted to amend or prohibit the authorised public assembly, Sergeant Schmidt should’ve gone to court prior to the demonstration. The Police Commissioner did not do this. The police case states “the defendant stood at the bottom of this ladder and held onto the sides. The location of the ladder was interfering with trade (sic) at the car park by obstructing people entering and leaving the place (sic).” Police claim the reason the defendant was doing that was because “a female protester climbed to the top of the ladder with signage and began chanting.”
Police argue that Police Powers and Responsibility Act section 48 (2) applies:
(2) However, a police officer must not give a direction under subsection (1) that interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly unless it is reasonably necessary in the interests of— (a) public safety ; or (b) public order; or (c) the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
PART 5 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act - DIRECTIONS TO MOVE ON
Section 45 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act states:
45. This part does not apply to an authorised public assembly under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 .
Police do not have a right to give a direction for people to move on if they are part of an authorised public assembly. Section 6 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 provides legal immunity for participants in an authorised public assembly.
There are a number of conditions that apply. (1) If a public assembly— (a) is an authorised public assembly; and (b) is peaceful; and (c) is held substantially in accordance with— (i) the relevant particulars; and (ii) any relevant conditions; a person who participates in the assembly does not, merely because of the participation, incur any civil or criminal liability because of the obstruction of a public place.
Conclusion
Based on the particulars given to the defendant by police prosecution, acting Snr Sergeant Matthew Thompson had no right to give defendant David SPRIGG a direction to move on because he was part of an authorised public assembly. The right of public assembly is a general right but it is also a right protected under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992. If the Commissioner wished to prohibit or limit the assembly, police are required to go to the court. The onus is on police or local authority, it is not on the organisers of the public assembly.
In the circumstance common sense suggests that David was simply making sure that the woman up the step ladder didn’t fall.
Despite several appearances the matter has still not gone to trial and Magistrate Daley postponed the trial till 20 June 2023.
Former BCC councilor Jonathan Sriranganathan goes to trial on a trespass charge arising out of Disrupt Land Forces. His trial is set down for 24 April 2023 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court.
Ian Curr
27 Mar 2023