Guest Post: The IPCA are awesome part 3 of 3
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
I am aware that there are a proportion of the public who distrust the IPCA specifically because of perceived deficiencies in the report last week. Accordingly I want to provide what insights I can here. Having said that it comes with the caveat that this post is by no means comprehensive for the simple reason that the report is 156 pages long. Nevertheless I have read large sections of it, including much of the stuff about Albert Park.
The alleged problems with the report include inter alia the following:
- The report did not cover every single issue in relation to the cases it covered e.g. it did not explicitly recommend disciplinary sanctions against the police officers who arrested me, which is perceived as a “whitewash”.
- The fact that the report attributes police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law re: protest in Aotearoa is intended as a “whitewash”.
- Changes to the law re: protest (especially requiring police notification 21 days in advance of any protest) are intended to suppress free speech (or will have that effect).
- The tone of the report was too measured.
The report did not cover everything
Yes, it is true that the report did not cover every single issue in relation to my case. It did not cover disciplinary sanctions and it did not cover other issues like the fact that I was refused the right to speak to a lawyer (despite requesting to do so, and providing a colleague’s number on the spot) or that I was subject to an illegal search. This is also true (or so I am told) of the Albert Park case.
The IPCA process is not over yet
However, the IPCA informed me long in advance that the report would not cover disciplinary sanctions re: the officers in my case. Rather, following publication of the report it said it would sit down with me and discuss disciplinary sanctions as well as any outstanding issues that I wish to raise. This was in part because the Albert Park complainants had been waiting for a very long time indeed for the outcome of their complaints (and were annoyed about the fact) and the IPCA wanted to speed up publication.
It is possible that something similar may happen with the Albert Park case
I imagine that something similar may occur in the Albert Park case, however any such process would depend among other things on the willingness of the complainants to undergo further interviews in a case that is dragging on. I note that the report was specifically about identifying issues in Aotearoa’s law re: protests and focussed primarily on aspects of the relevant cases which related to those issues. I note also that Speak Up for Women (whom, by the way, I am not associated with) have said in their press release that overall they are content with the report. Further, I note that the IPCA have a high workload.
The attribution of blame to inadequacies in the law re: protest is not a whitewash
I get why some people see the IPCA attributing police misconduct in part to inadequacies in the law as whitewashing. For example, the report says of my case that “the reasons provided for needing to act are consistent with a mistaken belief among some officers that their powers extend to the ability to arrest for anticipated breach of the peace.” (I was arrested for breach of the peace.) In other words, police are not aware that violence or threatened violence (which had not occurred when I was arrested) are a requisite element of breach of the peace.
In fact, I agree
That sounds like it’s trying to make excuses for police conduct. But in fact I agree, even though if anyone has a right to be aggrieved it is I. It was my experience when I was arrested and at subsequent protests that the police did not know what breach of the peace was. Although at present I have no strong stance I am open to the IPCA’s recommendation of statutory reforms introducing criminal offences tailored to protest situations which have more specific parameters than extant legal provisions.
Vague law suits the police
I add however that although it is true that the police officers in question did not know what breach of the peace was, neither did they care. Which is to say: vague law actually suits police officers on a power trip who are just out to arrest someone. They do not need to succeed in a prosecution to avoid consequences. They just need an arguable case that their actions were justified.
The police exploit this
Remember, the officers don’t personally have to pay legal costs if a criminal prosecution against someone fails. The defendant has to pay legal costs, but not the police officers who made the call to arrest. I know firsthand that the police exploit this. It is precisely what happened in Daniel Maxwell’s case, and the IPCA report specifically recommends that the police repay his legal aid debt for this reason. I think that more specific offences tailored to protests with clear parameters might protect the public from police abuse, as recommended in the IPCA report.
Remaining issues
I am not going to address the remaining issues at any length, except to say the merits of requiring protest organisers to obtain permits aside, in the course of my interactions with the IPCA the author of the report did not strike me as having an ideological axe to grind and I believe that suggestion to have been made in good faith. That does not mean of course that it is necessarily good policy.
I also note that while the report is indeed very measured in its tone (e.g. saying that the police “could [not] have believed” the contents of their own statements alleging that I was mentally ill and screaming at people, rather than saying “they lied”) that the IPCA has very good reason for seeking to avoid emotive language generally speaking, namely that it needs to avoid conveying bias for or against the police to the maximum degree possible. Personally, I take no offence.