Key Takeaways:
- The Federal Court has found that the Victoria Police declaration to search people without a warrant or direct anyone to remove a mask in Melbourne’s CBD was invalid and unlawfully breached the human rights charter.
- The declaration was made under the Weapons Control Act, which allows police to randomly search people or their cars without a warrant in designated areas.
- The court found that the declaration was incompatible with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and that police failed to properly consider these rights, particularly the right to privacy.
- The Human Rights Law Centre has called for the Victorian government to reconsider the extraordinary powers granted to police under the Act.
- The court’s decision has implications for the legality of other designated areas and thousands of searches conducted by Victoria Police.
Introduction to the Case
The Federal Court has made a landmark decision regarding the validity of a declaration made by Victoria Police to search people without a warrant or direct anyone to remove a mask in Melbourne’s CBD. The declaration, made under the Weapons Control Act, was found to be invalid and in breach of the human rights charter. This decision has significant implications for the powers granted to police under the Act and the rights of individuals in Victoria.
Background to the Declaration
The declaration was made in November, covering a large area of Melbourne’s CBD, including East Melbourne, the MCG, Shrine of Remembrance, Carlton Gardens, Southbank, and South Melbourne. The declaration was made for a period of six months, which is a significant increase from the previous 12-hour limit. The police argued that the declaration was necessary to deal with knife crime in the area, but the court found that the declaration was not justified and that the police had failed to properly consider the rights of individuals under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Court’s Decision
The Federal Court found that the declaration was incompatible with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and that police had failed to properly consider these rights, particularly the right to privacy. The court also found that the declaration was not necessary, given its wide-ranging scope and time frame. The decision was made in response to a legal challenge brought by the Human Rights Law Centre on behalf of Aboriginal activist Tarneen Onus Browne and environmentalist and anti-war protester Benny Zable.
Implications of the Decision
The decision has significant implications for the powers granted to police under the Weapons Control Act and the rights of individuals in Victoria. The Human Rights Law Centre has called for the Victorian government to reconsider the extraordinary powers granted to police under the Act, arguing that they are unnecessary and breach human rights. The decision also raises questions about the legality of other designated areas and thousands of searches conducted by Victoria Police.
Reaction to the Decision
The decision has been welcomed by civil liberties groups and individuals who were affected by the declaration. Tarneen Onus Browne, one of the applicants in the case, celebrated the decision, saying that it was a victory for human rights and the right to protest. Benny Zable, another applicant, expressed disappointment that the court did not find that police could not direct someone to remove a face mask at protests, but welcomed the overall decision. Victoria Police has said that it respects the court’s decision and will take the time to consider the findings.
Data on Police Searches
Data obtained by Liberty Victoria has shown that only a small percentage of searches conducted in designated areas result in any "objects or substances" being found. The Centre for Racial Profiling Network has also found that Indigenous people are 11 times more likely to be searched than white people, and people perceived to be African are six times more likely to be searched. These findings raise concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of the powers granted to police under the Act.
Conclusion
The Federal Court’s decision is a significant victory for human rights and the right to protest in Victoria. The decision highlights the need for police to properly consider the rights of individuals when exercising their powers under the Weapons Control Act. The Victorian government should reconsider the extraordinary powers granted to police under the Act and ensure that they are necessary and proportionate to the risks posed by knife crime. The decision also raises important questions about the effectiveness and fairness of police searches and the need for greater transparency and accountability in the exercise of police powers.
