“You can’t make figs grow on barren trees“- Ernie Lane in Dawn to Dusk, reminiscences of a rebel.
It is a low act for a union to send in the cops against its own members. This is what the Queensland Council of unions did on 6th May 2024. There were two arrests, followed by two more in the following months. Two unionists were fined and another person given community service.
The trial of life-time union member, Ian David Curr, charged with assaulting two police officers at May Day 2024 in Brisbane, concluded with a ‘not guilty’ verdict. The prosecution alleged Curr pushed against officers Snr Sgt Emma Gordon and Constable Jake Threlfall during a speech by the then-premier, Stephen Miles, listing his government’s achievements but failing to acknowledge complicity in war crimes in Gaza.
The magistrate, referencing legal precedents, emphasized the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, he avoided the central question that the Queensland Council of Unions (QCU)’s notice of intention* to hold a rally where the Premier would speak inside the showgrounds was authorised** by Sgt Kirsty Schmidt. Schimdt tried to cover this up by saying she had only authorised the march and that the event inside the exhibition grounds was a private event where the QCU had contracted police to manage the crowd. The flaw in her argument was that police arrived at the grounds in force empowered by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.
Police evidence included body-worn camera footage and witness testimonies. Mr Julian Noud SM found Curr’s actions unintentional and not deliberate, thus failing to meet the prosecution’s standard of proof. Curr was discharged, and costs were not awarded to the self-represented defendant.
The magistrate noted that inconsistencies or gaps in memory of police are understandable, especially given the passage of 15 months between Labour Day 2024 on 6 May 2024 and their testimony on 31 July 2025.
Mr Noud SM found that police officers approached the defendant, who was positioned near the stage holding a Palestinian flag near where the premier was speaking. Officer Threlfall applied force to the defendant, pushing him away, and another protester in a blue cap moved back with the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant attempted to regain his footing, and unintentionally pushed against officers Gordon and Threlfall.
His honour concluded that the defendant is entitled to be found not guilty of both charges but declined to consider any further arguments from Mr. Curr regarding the lawfulness of police actions under the Peaceful Assembly Act that provides legal immunity to people holding an authorised public assembly such as the rally on May Day 2024. The Police lose their move on powers in such assemblies unless there were a breach of the peace. There was no convincing evidence from police that there was anything more that chanting and flag waving. The officer in charge Emma Gordon claimed she was spat upon. This false claim is now a matter for appeal in the district court.
In evidence, Curr describes the initial interaction with Sgt Kayne Nund, which led to him losing his balance and grabbing hold of the stage to stay upright. He described aggressive actions of six police as ‘a flying wedge gone wrong‘. Curr criticized police for targeting the Palestinian groups at May Day and not protecting the rights of all assembled people at the event.
The prosecution claimed it had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Curr, aggrieved by police intervention, pushed police, that his movements were deliberate and intentional and not a result of jostling or external forces.
Mr Noud SM acknowledged the complexity of the case and the surrounding circumstances. He asked for the prosecution to replay the Body Worn Camera footage.
The officer from Major Events and planning, Sgt Kirsty Schmidt, claimed her direction for police to move in was lawful and argued that her authorisation only covered the march but not the rally addressed by the Premier in the showgrounds.
The defendant said this was not a serious argument because police authorisation covered the march right up to the stopping point as envisioned in the Peaceful Assembly Act. He argued that the right to peaceful assembly and protest (as protected by law) should be interpreted in favor of the defendant and that police intervention was unlawful. The magistrate dismissed this by claiming that he did not need to determine whether police conduct was lawful or not because the prosecution had not shown that Curr’s actions were intentional.
Curr asked that the magistrate read the explanatory memorandum of the Peaceful Assembly Act in Hansard where the Attorney General outlined the reasons for why the Labor government introduced that act in 1992. He said that the government introduced that act in the context of there being a refusal of democratic rights to be exercised in the state of Queensland by a succession of conservative governments. He argued that a lot of other people had participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the Springbok anti-apartheid movement, and then, of course, crucially, in the Street Marches in the late 70s. And that thousands had been arrested because democratic rights had been withdrawn by government. So the Labor Attorney General tried to reform that situation, outlined in Hansard in the explanatory memoranda, he said, ‘We don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages‘.
The Attorney said that the government wants to make sure that there is freedom of assembly, and that includes the expression of political opposition to the government of the day. And so he introduced a prima facie right to to public assembly, peaceful assembly, something that police and QCU officials were attempting to deny pro-Palestinian protestors on May Day 2024.
The magistrate then handed down his judgement:
“I find myself in a position where I can’t rule out beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has unintentionally moved his weight towards officers Gordon and Threlfall in an attempt to regain his footing in transferring his weight onto those two police officers for a momentary period of time, and that in doing so, his actions, I can’t rule out, were unintentional and not deliberate.
And. It therefore seems to me that with respect to that element, that the prosecution case I’m not satisfied of beyond reasonable doubt, therefore follows, having applied the law to the facts that the ultimate conclusion can really be made, and that is that the defendant, with respect to each of the charges, is entitled to be found not guilty for the reasons that I have given.
It’s unnecessary, Therefore for me to go on and consider any of the other arguments put forward by Mr. Curr in particular, whether or not police were police were performing their duties lawfully. That’s not necessary, because, as I say, the prosecution case falls down on that element, therefore the defendant, Ian David Curr is found not guilty with respect to each of the charges, and the defendant is discharged anything arising.”
The magistrate refused to hear any argument about his responsibilities under the Rome convention that Australia abide by rulings of the International Court of Justice concerning complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Ian Curr
9 Aug 2025
Police exhibits
*Notice of Intention to hold a public assembly
**Notice of permission to hold a public assembly
One of the most important aspects of conducting your own defence is understanding the basics of evidence and cross-examining witnesses.
A self-represented defendant is usually given some latitude by the magistrate or judge. The court will often assist with procedural matters and may help clarify the form of a question. However, the rules of evidence still apply, and it is important to prepare carefully before the hearing.
Come to court with a list of the questions you need to ask in order to expose contradictions, omissions or weaknesses in the police or Crown case. Think about the facts you need the witness to admit and the points you need to establish.
A fundamental rule of cross-examination is to ask only one question at a time. Keep your questions short, clear and precise. Do not combine several issues into a single question. The purpose is to obtain a definite answer to a single fact before moving on to the next point.
By proceeding one fact at a time, you build the narrative you want the court to understand. You also avoid giving the witness an opportunity to claim that the question is confusing, vague or impossible to answer. Clear, simple questions are usually far more effective than long and complicated ones.
Only ask questions that you know the answer to.
One further traditional piece of cross-examination advice, often found in defendants’ handbooks such as Not Guilty!, is: don’t ask a question unless you know why you’re asking it and what answer you expect to receive. A witness can sometimes do more damage to your case on cross-examination than on their evidence-in-chief if they are given room to expand on their story.
An activist may be charged with obstructing the transport of weapons parts being used in a genocide.
Here are some tips.
Firstly only the facts that are relevant to the elements of the commission of an offence(s) are permissible at trial under rules of evidence.
Therefore, it is important to work out the precise elements of the offence.
For example, obstructing an emergency worker may have the following elements (depending on the section of the act with which you are charged):
1. The complainant was an emergency worker.
2. The emergency worker was on duty.
3. The accused was using, attached to, or remained attached to a lock-on device.
4. The lock-on device obstructed the emergency worker.
5. The obstruction was intentional.
6. The obstruction occurred while the emergency worker was carrying out their duty.
In an obstruct case element 5 may turn out to be the most important element.
The prosecution may argue that the mere fact of locking-on is an obstruction.
This is not really a serious argument because intention is an important element. The Latin word is mens rea. The prosecution must show that you actively prevented the emergency worker from removing the lock-on device.
On the statement of facts, you must be quite clinical about the relevance of the prosecution case.
It is important to narrow down the statement to essential facts because the introduction of inconsistent or irrelevant facts can be used to gain judgment against you.
EXAMPLE. Take the following charge under section 52 DA(1) of the Queensland criminal code about the recital distribution publication or display of prohibited expressions:
https://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/wp-17802661235837510772553979164584.jpg
CHARGE. “On 18 April 2026 at Brisbane City … without reasonable excuse publicly displayed a prohibited expression in a way that might reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended …”
ELEMENTS of the offence — s 52DA(1) Criminal Code (Qld).
1. The defendant publicly recited, publicly distributed, published, or publicly displayed an expression;
2. The expression was a prohibited expression;
3. The recital, distribution, publication or display was in a way that might reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel:
– menaced; or
– harassed; or
– offended;
4. The conduct occurred in Queensland;
5. The defendant did so without reasonable excuse.
Please note that in the pro former facts provided by the prosecution, police claim the defendant was given a warning. The legislation does not require a warning. In this case a warning may be an attempt by the police to shore up one element of the offence: “a member of the public was likely to feel menace harassed or offended.”
At the demonstration there was a lot of noise because police were confiscating speaking equipment at the time of the arrest and the warning either was not given or the defendant did not hear. That offended in this case suffered from industrial deafness.
Remember The Golden rule: The prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ each and every element of the offence.
QUESTION. The informant’s statement contains many facts unrelated to the charges and some falsehoods. How do I prevent the informant’s statement from being admitted as evidence as is?
One method is to ask the magistrate to conduct a voir dire. So you make an application before the prosecution begins its case for a determination by the magistrate of what evidence is relevant to the elements of the offence. The aim is to exclude irrelevant prejudicial material.
This can be a tricky tactic because the magistrate is an adjudicator of all the facts. S/he sees all the irrelevant material and may be biased by them. A Voir Dire is used mainly in jury trials so the jury is not influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial material.
Another method that one may employ is to argue with the prosecutor that all the irrelevant and prejudicial material must be expunged from the charge before it is presented to the court at trial.
PREPARATION. Before going to trial, draw up a table or a spreadsheet with each of the elements of the offence and the facts that are relevant to each element. Put in the table questions of each witness that undermine the prosecution’s case in support of each element. Police will try to bolster their case by introducing extraneous or preducial material .
Bear in mind the real obstruction is by the police and courts preventing ligitimate political protest.
Ian Curr
31 May 2026
WHAT!!! They let this commie backslider off scott free??? He should have been marched off to Boggo Road immediately!!What is this world coming to?