IBAC hearing: Application for excessive-force case to be held in secret
By Mark Russell
Updated April 15, 2015 — 5.46pm first published at 5.18pm
Lawyers for two Ballarat police officers accused of using excessive force against a vulnerable woman have applied to the Supreme Court to have an anti-corruption hearing into the claims held in secret.
The Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption commission (IBAC) wanted to force the two officers, one male and one female whose names were suppressed, to give evidence at a public hearing on Wednesday.
But the commission agreed to adjourn the case while the police officers' lawyers sought an urgent interim order from Supreme Court Justice Peter Riordan preventing IBAC from holding the inquiry in public.
Barrister David Grace, QC, told Justice Riordan that IBAC was claiming there had been three incidents involving police and four women between 2009 and January 2015.
Mr Grace said the 2009 incident involved allegations that two women had been put in chokeholds by a male officer, while the 2010 incident allegedly involved a male and a female officer forcibly handling a woman under arrest.
The two police officers IBAC wanted to question on Wednesday were allegedly involved in an incident on January 15, 2015, where a woman was assaulted.
They were suspended with pay on April 2 by assistant commissioner Graeme Arthur from Professional Standards Command pending an investigation.
Mr Grace said the claims against the police officers fell at the lower end of the spectrum of alleged criminal behaviour by police or anyone, and was not evidence of a systemic culture of bad behaviour by police at Ballarat police station.
He said if the IBAC hearing into the January 2015 incident was held in public and reported in the media and on the internet, the reputations of the two police officers would be "completely trashed".
Mr Grace claimed it would be "an infection of the criminal trial process" if the two police officers were forced to give evidence in public, and the potential for the administration of justice to be adversely affected was high.
He said even though the two police officers' evidence to the IBAC inquiry could not be used against them at any future trial, the details of the alleged incident would be all over the media and online and would prejudice their right to a fair trial.
Mr Grace told the judge that IBAC wanted to investigate claims a significant culture had developed among officers at Ballarat police station involving a dereliction of duty and a failure to abide by the high standards demanded of them by Victoria Police.
Assistant commissioner Arthur had informed the two police officers allegedly involved in the January 2015 incident that they were reasonably believed to have committed an offence punishable by imprisonment.
Details of the alleged assault on the woman were not given during Wednesday's hearing.
Mr Grace said IBAC hearings were usually only open to the public in exceptional circumstances when they were in the public interest and would not damage a person's reputation, safety and well-being.
IBAC commissioner Stephen O'Bryan, QC, claimed he wanted a public hearing because of the overriding public interest in examining the activities of police officers at Ballarat Police Station.
Under the IBAC Act, the two police officers would not have the right to silence and would be forced to give evidence.
The Supreme Court hearing will resume on Thursday.