28 Apr 2015

Police Clear Police Over Use Of Pepper Spray At Anti-Pyne Protest

By Max Chalmers

A complaint about the excessive use of force at a protest where a blind student was pepper sprayed has been dismissed. Max Chalmers reports.

A complaint about the use of excessive force and pepper spray by police has been dismissed, with a Professional Standards Inspector finding spraying demonstrating students was “lawful, reasonable, proportionate and justified in the circumstances”.

The complaint was lodged after a February 13 protest targeting an event being attended by Education Minister Christopher Pyne, which resulted in a number of students being sprayed in the face, including one who is legally blind.

Video from the incident shows the demonstrators walking into the event, causing police and security to rush to the door and throw some to the ground. Shortly after, pepper spray is used seemingly at random on the crowd.

Brigitte Garozzo, who lodged a complaint after she was sprayed in the face, said she was not satisfied police had explained why the use of force was necessary.

Garozzo’s complaint said she had not been aggressive towards police during the incident.

“I think the event was open to the public and I think it may have been fair to stop people getting through if there were that many people, but the tactics they used to do it were pretty heavy handed straight away,” Garozzo said.

“Getting out pepper spray, if you’re going to use it you should only do it when there is violence.”

In response to the complaint the Professional Standards Inspector for Sydney City Local Area Command found police had not breached the law or policies governing the use pepper spray, which police call “OC defensive spray”.

The response to the complaint said an officer had called an ambulance via police radio after the spray was used.

A media release put out by NSW Police at the time of the incident said police had been attempting to keep themselves and protesters safe.

“[The protesters] attempted to push through a single door, posing a safety risk to both police and the protestors.”

“The protestors allegedly failed to comply with police instructions to move back. As further protestors were forcing their way into the foyer area, police – concerned a crowd-crush situation was imminent – deployed OC spray.”

Garozzo rejected the idea the police were acting to protect students.

“I don’t think the case at all. I’ve been to lots of protests, this wasn’t unsafe for protestors...the space itself wasn’t that small, we would have all fit in the lobby quite comfortably,” she said.

Garozzo is still be able to appeal the decision and said she is considering her options.

The February protest was just one of the scores of demonstrations and marches sparked by Pyne’s efforts to deregulate the university sector, a move that would allow universities to uncap the cost of degrees, likely seeing prices skyrocket.

With Pyne failing to win crossbench senate support for the package, and some of its most solid defenders backing away, it now appears unlikely to go ahead.

NSW Police has been contacted for comment.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

IAIN HALL
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 14:33

Well that settles it, the police were not using ecessive force and the demonstators were in the wrong as I argued previously

dharv
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 18:22

Well of course the police weren't using excessive force Iain. They said so themselves.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. boganbludging
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 19:54

This nation has officially gone to the dogs and I don't mean the protesters.

Nauseated
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 21:32

At 0:21 seconds into the video the senior officer's left hand can be seen grabbing at a female protester's right shoulder - blue t-shirt from behind and holding on until 0:27 at which point the protester is turned to face the officer who then grabs her right arm. At 0:30 the protestor has been restrained & prevented from moving back as instructed for the past 9 seconds, the senior officer then lines her up, takes aim and sprays her eyes at point blank range. This protester was restrained and posed absolutely no threat to the officer, so denying her the ability to retreat with her colleagues, then spraying her eyes with a chemical weapon was an open & shut case of police brutality.The abundance of cameras present during this incident proves this fascist knows he can act with impunity under Abbott & Baird's regimes.

 

 

IAIN HALL
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 22:22

Nauseated
 

At 0:21 seconds into the video the senior officer's left hand can be seen grabbing at a female protester's right shoulder - blue t-shirt from behind and holding on until0:27

Actually the officer is trying to push this woman away because she is clearly trying to get through the doorway  that he is standing in

 

at which point the protester is turned to face the officer who then grabs her right arm.

She certainly turns but its of her own volition because she is till intent on getting through the doorway.

At 0:30 the protestor has been restrained & prevented from moving back as instructed for the past 9 seconds, the senior officer then lines her up, takes aim and sprays her eyes at point blank range.

The only people preventing her moving back are her fellow protestors

This protester was restrained and posed absolutely no threat to the officer, so denying her the ability to retreat with her colleagues, then spraying her eyes with a chemical weapon was an open & shut case of police brutality.The abundance of cameras present during this incident proves this fascist knows he can act with impunity under Abbott & Baird's regimes.

This was not a "peaceful protest" and as such no reasonable person would expect the police to behave any differently they only used sufficent force to  exclude the protestors from the building where they had no lawful reason to enter.

As I noted in the earlier thread the protestors clearly expected to and even wanted the police to use CS spray because they had large bottles of milk ( the treatment for CS exposure) on hand for that eventuality.

 

Nauseated
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2015 - 22:40

At 0:06 superintendent fascist demonstrated his physical prowess by pushing, with consumate ease,  a group of protesters away from the door, with at least two hitting the floor, so your premise that "the officer is trying to push this woman away" ...by clearly restraining - holding onto her for 11 seconds is complete drivel.

IAIN HALL
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - 01:04

Sigh!!!!!!!

Nauseated
 

At 0:06 superintendent fascist demonstrated his physical prowess by pushing, with consumate ease,  a group of protesters away from the door, with at least two hitting the floor, so your premise that "the officer is trying to push this woman away" ...by clearly restraining - holding onto her for 11 seconds is complete drivel.

The police imperative here is clearly to both prevent the students from entering the building while using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary and of course trying to avoid causing those students any sort of  harm, as unpleasant as CS is, it causes no permanent damage. You see I may be an old codger now but I have participated in the odd demo myself in my younger days and this mob of "students" were clearly not trying to "peacefully demonstrate" they were trying to provoke the police so its a bot rich to now complain that they got that which they wanted to happen.   

 

Dx2013
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - 12:46

I believe police's version.

These students can only be described as provocative trouble makers. They had the right to protest for the things they don't like. But they must be dealt with for their physical aggression by gatecrashing and interrupting the event.

Mind you, these were not the social- economically poor students. They were those socialist alliance prats.

IAIN HALL
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - 16:23

Dx2013
 

Mind you, these were not the social- economically poor students. They were those socialist alliance prats.

Ah yes the good old "silvertail socialists" who can easily go home to mumsie or daddy when they run a bit short of beer money or when they have spent their money on other personal indulgences. 

This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - 22:38

If it was so imperative to deny access to the building, why were only 3-4 people 'guarding' it? The uniformed officer was holding the spray from the start, and either panicked or refused to accept non-compliance or probably both.

Actual crowd-control training focuses on opening pressure-relieving bottlenecks, not obstructing them and defending them with pepper-spray .The police may not claim protester-welfare, nor protecting property which becomes secondary anyway when human life-or-limb is really at risk.

So, why did the cop spray a 90-degree eye-level arc of OC back into the 'crowd' rather than open (or close) the doors? And if the mission was to protect the rooms beyond the doors, why weren't any police or suits assigned to occupy-them-first? Never attribute to conspiracy that which can easily be explained by stupidity. Most real conspiracies are just cover-ups for stupidity anyway. These cops were stupid, and now they're on the hook. Let justice take it's full course.