‘Looking with both eyes‘ – Persian proverb meaning to look behind the facts.
Appeal court ignores Israel’s genocide in assault case
6 May 2024 — Labor Day function at the RNA Showgrounds — last words
Yesterday’s man, former premier of Queensland, Steven Miles, made a speech at the 2024 May Day celebrations ignoring the fact that assembled unionists had turned their backs on him because of his government’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza.
Now three years into Israel’s genocide in Palestine the new Queensland government is actively supporting weapons factories, air shows and the US war machine that has caused the wholesale slaughter of people in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria amd Yemen.
The Facts. At least 20 police came upon us at the direction of the Secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions. Police attacked and assaulted several unionists in front of the dais, including myself.
At no stage was I more than a metre from the appellant, and at no stage did she spit on the boot of the police sergeant in charge of the rogue taskforce intervening at this gathering of unionists.
The respondent fabricated evidence of counter-assaults to justify police intervention at the May Day protest against Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Several months after May Day the same police officers brought two charges of assault against myself arising out of the same incident. This led to 11 appearances in court defending the charges. By my calculation I was detained unrepresented in the environs of the court for over 40 hours and was forced to listen to excuses by police and court who refused me particulars of the offences I did not commit. I spent a total of over 40 hours at court detained under the Bail Act, a flagrant misuse of legislation intended to ensure my attendance. Over a period of 50 years of facing political charges I have never failed to attend the court.
The same magistrate (Noud) that heard the appeal cited below found me ‘not guilty’.
Yet he refused to hear my argument that police were not acting in the execution of their duty, that they fabricated evidence against me and it was their actions that caused me and fellow unionists to lose our footing in melee (which the Magistrate accepted).
There was a shameful attack on a retired union member beside me. Police chose to humiliate and disrespect a dedicated union supporter placing his wrist in a painful lock and marching him through the crowd for several hundreds metres. No on intervene. A union organiser accompanied her former member to assist if necessary.
The Premier should not have been invited to this function. The Premier forfeited his right to address any crowd of unionists because of his government’s complicity in war crimes and its support of the rogue apartheid state of Israel and the genocidal United States government. The Queensland government has imposed a blanket ban of saying the words “From the River to the sea” and “Globalise the intifada” a direct attack on our organisation Justice for Palestine Magandjin.
ABOU-SLEIMAN v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
[2025] QDC 128
[BD 3175/2024]
Erroneous findings by appeal Judge
District Court, Brisbane
Barlow KC DCJ
25 July; 11 September 2025
Criminal Law — Particular offences — Offences against the person — Assault — Conduct — Other particular cases — Serious assaults — Spitting — Whether spitting on a person’s boot amounted to an assault — Criminal Code ss 245, 340(1)(b), 340(a)(i).
(A Dig 3rd [2213]).
“On 6 May 2024, the appellant attended a Labor Day function at the RNA Showgrounds. She was one of a group of protesters (unionists) attending in purported (actual) support of Palestine and to protest (turned our backs) against the (complicity) of then Premier of Queensland, who was scheduled to speak at the rally (but ignored genocide).
Police, including the complainant, (neither is true) were lined up in front of the stage from which speakers were addressing the crowd.
The appellant stepped forward to within about one metre of the complainant and spat on the ground between them. The respondent alleged (and the magistrate found) that at least some of her spittle landed on the complainant’s boot (it did not).
The complainant attempted unsuccessfully to apprehend the appellant (this police officer did not), but she succeeded in leaving. She was apprehended and charged a few days later.
The appellant sought to overturn a conviction for serious assault, constituted by spitting on the complainant’s boot, including on the basis that this could not amount to an assault particularised as the application of force to the complainant.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that for the spittle of the appellant to land on the boot of the complainant amounted to an assault as an application of force.” – Barlow KC DCJ.
Beware courts that silence opposition to genocide.
Ian Curr
15 Aug 2026