Civil Rights Enigma.

The police would be not doing their duty if they did not check out several youths sitting on a bench outside a bakery in the Blue Mountains town of  Glenbrook very late at night.  As it happened, they were waiting to be picked up and taken home by the sister of one of the group who had been attending a local house party.

One young man was actually seventeen, but looked more like twelve or thirteen at the time.  He took offence at the police approach and was heard to respond with " F--- off, dog.  C---. "   He was moderately affected by alcohol and in response the cop grabbed him by his shirt front and swung him around, causing him to drop heavily to the ground.

The teen was arrested and charged with assault, resisting arrest, using offensive language in public and failing to obey a move on directive.  A children's court magistrate found the offensive language charge proven, but used his power to dismiss all the other charges.  Now aged twenty-one this man  sued the state for assault and battery, false imprisonment  and malicious prosecution.  He claimed to have felt " humiliated, embarrassed and scared " by the arrest.

A District Court judge handed down a $124,000 judgement against the state.  This consisted of $25,000 for assault and battery, $30,000 for false imprisonment and $45,000 for malicious prosecution - plus interest. The judge commented that the police officer was insulted by this personal and professional slight and over reacted by arresting the youth.

A fair minded person would concede that the police had every right to question youths lingering late at night to determine if they were planning a break-in or doing public damage. An explanation that they were waiting for the arrival of a lift home would have amicably settled the matter.  Instead, this youth gratuitously insulted the officers profession and personally added an epithet that most people would consider very insulting.

The sticking point seems to have been the officer using force to respond to that insult.  Surely the arrest should have been justified on that " using offensive language in public " charge.  The fact that a Children's Court magistrate chose to drop the other charges and a District Court judge awarded $124,000 from the public purse sends a message that the police can be verbally insulted  with impunity.

Police officers are also " people " and they have just as much right to civil rights as the rest of the community.  The outcome from this case will probably see police taunted with insults that their superiors will demand they ignore.  That is almost certain to result in aggressive police using the " bif " if they think they can get away with it.

In this instance, it seems that the courts have over played their power of discretion.  The police have a right to a degree of respect.  That young man was improperly rewarded.