NO POLICE BRUTALITY’

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32379, 19 August 1970, Page 28

NO POLICE BRUTALITY’

(Neto Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 18. Some grounds for complaint against the police for their actions during the visit of the American Vice-President (Mr Spiro Agnew) are found by the Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) in a special report tabled in Parliament today.

The report deals with charges of brutality during and after the dispersal of demonstrators from outside Mr Agnew’s hotel at 11.45 p.m. on January 16. It concludes that there was nothing approaching brutality.

Sir Guy Powles exonerates the police force as a whole from any charges of misconduct, but is critical of some details of timing and crowd management, and denounces "some incidents of unprovoked violence” in Albert Park after the demonstration, as “completely improper and reprehensible.” He also suggests that a clarification of the common l.'w rules relating to demonstrations might be of value, and notes with satisfaction that the Commissioner of Police (Mr W. H. A Sharp) has already taken steps to examine the legal rights of the police in dealing with demonstrations.

. The report concludes that , “some aspects of the police conduct and procedures were f open to criticism—namely : the manner of ordering dispersal, and time then permitted for voluntary dlsper- ’ sal, and the incidents in Al- ■ bert Park. I PROVOCATIVE ; "As against this, some of the . demonstrators had acted in a , deliberately provocative way, I and some may well have been determined not to disperse voluntarily. “The .common law rules relating to demonstrations may be somewhat less precise and less well known than modern conditions require. “It is certain that our society will have to live with demonstrations for the foreseeable future, and in the public interest everyone should know the rules.” The Ombudsman is not : highly critical of police action in the actual dispersal of demonstrators, but he , does conclude:— i That a loudhaller should I have been used to warn i demonstrators to disperse. That a little more time should have been given for demonstrators to disi perse voluntarily before force was used. He quotes from a police i manual on the handling of demonstrators, and pays he

believes the spirit of this advice was not completely followed. “The explanations given included, of course, matters such as the lateness of the hour, long hours of police duty, and the crowd tension,” he said. “But while these are valid and very understandable explanations in a situation in which one must have every sympathy with the police, they do not essentially 'add up-to complete justification. “However, given the decision to use physical restraint and physical force ... to divide and disperse the crowd, and to do this at that particular time without making arrests, I do not think the amount of force used was notably excessive, but with a different operative decision the amount of force necessary to disperse the demonstration could well have been less.” However, be does not have much sympathy with many of the demonstrators who subsequently complained.

“There is no doubt that considerable elements of the peculiar psychology of a crowd were present that evening,” he said. “I think that all those who voluntarily take part in such performances, by themselves forming part of the crowd, have to be prepared to take some risk of quite untoward events occurring. NO CONTROL

“The more passive demonstrators should not . . . complain too loudly if they become caught up in a situation which they have no control, but which they could have avoided by not being there at all.” Many of the demonstrators quite sincerely and honestly believed that no warning to disperse was given before police took action, he said. “Indeed, some of them spoke of their fright when the police ‘came suddenly over the chains.’ “That there was this strong element of fright, even approaching panic, among the demonstrators when the police took this action, is quite clear from the many reports of screams and hysterical actions on the part of some of the female demonstrators.” However, the Ombudsman also records evidence, which he finds satisfactory, that at least some “hard-core” demonstrators had certainly been warned to disperse, and that a senior-sergeant present had warned demonstrators to move. “OVER-ENTHUSIASTIC” He notes that the Commissioner of Police advised the Minister of Police, after making inquiries into complaints, that in his view “while a few members of the force might have been overenthusiastic when the order to disperse the’ crowd was given, he was firmly of the

opinion that the bulk of the members acted with the restraint and moderation expected of them.” “1 think this advice was substantially correct, subject to differing interpretations of the word ‘over-enthusiastic’," Sir Guy Powles said.

He comments on the “atmosphere of confrontation" during the demonstration.

“There is no doubt that the accounts of the incident given to me by my complainants and those others of the demonstrators whom I interviewed were coloured by this emotional background,” he said. “Emotion, however, was not confined only to the demonstrators.

"Die police had had a long, hot, hard day in the Auckland sunshine. They were

subject to sporadic and intermittent abuse from the demonstrators occasionally obscene, but always insulting, and becoming progressively harder to take. “Some of them had been on duty for many hours, and there is no doubt that nerves were becoming frayed, and the judgment of tired men tends to become dulled.” Sir Guy Powles quotes at length from the report of a senior police officer who had not been on duty for a tong time and who was not directly concerned with police action at the scene. The police officer described the dispersal of demonstrators as “a severe pushing session," and told the Ombudsman that demonstrators were “terribly disorganised and were pushing and shoving against each other.” “EXAGGERATION”

The police officer told the Ombudsman he was astounded, at the gross exaggeration and misreporting of the events in the “New Zealand Herald” the next day. The Ombudsman says that many of the persons taking part in the demonstration were committing offences, and could have been arrested But he reaches the conclusion that there was not a tumultuous breach of the peace occurring, and thrfl therefore the police action to disperse the demonstrators could have been taken only under common law rules, and not under the Crimes Act section covering unlawful assembly. The steps being taken by the police to clarify the practical procedures for crowd control, and to examine the legal rights of police in dealing with demonstrators, could lead to relaxation of tension in a difficult area of public life, he said.