Police, Security & Supporter Discussion Part 2

[mack]

Thread to discuss any issues regarding police and/or security. It is not just about issues involving the Wanderers, but also wider issues that regard the topics of police & security in football.

Previous Thread Here

[TonyO]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/policed-football-fans-enemy-manchester-city-bournemouth-police-stewards?CMP=share_btn_tw

I’ve policed a lot of football. We must stop treating fans as the enemy

Good UK article showing the alternative and positive policing approach to football fan behaviour. 

"It is always interesting to watch the reaction of stewards and police officers when a goal is scored. I see fear, anger, aggression, sometimes panic. For many, it seems the overriding desire is to stop a perfectly normal and natural human reaction to a rare event, rather than taking a few steps back, a few deep breaths, remaining calm, and observing and giving half a minute for things to calm down."

"The reaction of stewards and police officers to goal celebrations is symptomatic of a wider problem with the rules and regulations that govern football fans, and the way that authorities treat them as a group."

[Johnno]

so has george copped a 5 year ban yet? surely a conviction for assault inside the venue should make that a life ban?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/masterchef-judge-george-calombaris-foulmouthed-spray-revealed-in-assault-case-20170907-gyd971.html

Celebrity chef George Calombaris has been warned the courts take assaults "very seriously" as he awaits his sentence for punching a teenager at the A-League grand final in Sydney.

The MasterChef judge pleaded guilty in August to assaulting a 19-year-old man at the grand final between Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC at Allianz Stadium in May.

George Calombaris arrives at the Downing Centre Local Court on Friday
George Calombaris arrives at the Downing Centre Local Court on Friday Photo: AAP
The Downing Centre Local Court heard on Friday that Calombaris, 38, told the teenager "you're a big-mouthed man you dodgy c---" before punching him in the abdomen.

His lawyer Patrick Conaghan said there may have been "mitigating circumstances" because Calombaris believed the fan had called a member of his family a c---.

Calombaris expected to be sentenced on Friday, but magistrate David Price instead ordered a full pre-sentence report - which sets out sentencing options including alternatives to full-time custody.

He faces a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or a $5500 fine.

Mr Price said it was appropriate to order a full pre-sentence report, which involves an interview between Calombaris and Corrective Services, because "there's a plethora of superior court decisions for public assaults to be taken seriously".

George Calombaris pleaded guilty in August to assaulting a teenager at the A-League grand final in Sydney.
George Calombaris pleaded guilty in August to assaulting a teenager at the A-League grand final in Sydney. Photo: AAP
Calombaris was supporting Melbourne Victory - defeated by Sydney FC in a tense 4-2 penalty shoot-out - when he began arguing with a fan in the stands. The teenager was not injured.

Before the altercation, a person in the crowd was heard to shout "pay your staff you dodgy bastard".

Calombaris' company Made Establishment reported itself to the Fair Work Ombudsman in April after an internal audit revealed significant payroll discrepancies throughout its restaurant chain.

The company said it had spent $2.6 million to compensate 160 current employees.

Calombaris issued a statement after the altercation in which he said he was "disappointed with what occurred" and regretted "the way in which I reacted".

"I was genuinely shocked when post-match football banter turned into personal abuse about my family," he said.

"I am disappointed that I let it get to me, and I sincerely apologise for offending anyone."

Calombaris will be sentenced on October 20.

 

 

[Davo]

Anyone other than a celebrity and they'd have already been banned.

[btron3000]

There's still a chance they'll ban him. After all, he's got a wog name.

[Carns]

Calombaris has reportedly "banned himself" for at least a year. If only regular fans had the same option.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com.au/news/george-calombaris-bans-himself-from-a-league-games-472902

[mack]

So will that be on top of the 5 (arguably should be a 10 year ban considering how much he's bought the sport into disrepute & being a celebrity fan) year FFA ban?

[tardotz]

Don't like the guy or his club but it looked more like a push and not a punch. Did the ESFC guy also get arrested?

He was provoked and he reacted...if they put people in jail for that, they should start building more prisons.

[Carns]

16 minutes ago, tardotz said:

Don't like the guy or his club but it looked more like a push and not a punch. Did the ESFC guy also get arrested?

He was provoked and he reacted...if they put people in jail for that, they should start building more prisons.

He's not going to gaol, he'll get a fine at most.

The thing that pisses people off is that if he were a regular fan (and not a celebrity) he would've been banned for a minimum of five years. Both the club and FFA have been silent and he's come out and banned himself for "at least" one year.

Why hasn't he been officially banned from all A-league games by FFA? Double standards, that's why.

[mack]

The stated facts are George punched the guy in the stomach after a verbal exchange.

[MartinTyler]

2 hours ago, Carns said:

He's not going to gaol, he'll get a fine at most.

The thing that pisses people off is that if he were a regular fan (and not a celebrity) he would've been banned for a minimum of five years. Both the club and FFA have been silent and he's come out and banned himself for "at least" one year.

Why hasn't he been officially banned from all A-league games by FFA? Double standards, that's why.

Do we know whether or not he has been banned by the FFA yet? Do we need someone to leak details to Newscorp?

[mack]

That he's "voluntarily" banned himself for 1 year suggest FFA haven't lifted a finger yet.

[ColdRock]

It was a family friendly, social punch

[Case]

Assault charges require a victim. So yes, the sofcoq (the "victim") pressed charges. 

[MartinTyler]

If the video footage we all saw is all that happened then it's a bit soft. I would ask though as to whether he was in the field of play in an official capacity?

[Prydzopolis]

1 hour ago, MartinTyler said:

If the video footage we all saw is all that happened then it's a bit soft. I would ask though as to whether he was in the field of play in an official capacity?

The issue I have with the GC incident, he got charged with assault and had that happened with an ordinary A-League fan he'd be slapped with a 2-5 year ban.

The irony, GC has enough thousands to defend himself with the legal quagmire the FFA have set up surrounding the appeals process. Sadly, the common A-League fan doesn't have a spare cash burning in their pocket to fight.

[Davo]

I'm sure he was on the field in an official capacity, one of the other masterchief guys was with him. Shouldn't make a difference though. Either he was entering the field without permission, which is illegal, or he was there representing the club/league, which makes a stronger argument for him bringing the game into disrepute.

[mack]

2 hours ago, Case said:

Assault charges require a victim. So yes, the sofcoq (the "victim") pressed charges. 

In Australia the Police & Prosecutors (representing the State) make a decision regarding charging for an offence. The victim is only a witness.

[ColdRock]

All true but in FFA world, the onus of proof lies with the accused. The accused in this case must provide evidence that supports an appeal against FFA's decision not to ban him.

FFArce

[Hughesy]

FFA have a broadcast deal with channel 10 that they desperately want to work. Do you really think they would go after a main judge on the networks biggest show (who is also a massive HAL fan of which there are few and far between in the celeb world)?...

George is an idiot for starting a physical confrontation and deserves to be banned because violence is violence and is stupid behaviour, even if it was a small shove. Don't care, I've got no time for that crap.  

What's being done about verbal abuse and baiting though? I've been to away games at almost every other clubs home ground but no one comes close to ESFC when it comes to it. They start the minute you get off the train at central til you get back on it and they'll use just about any topic to have a go, no matter how low it is. My favourite is the hero or seven who get some liquid courage and think they're invincible up in their warm, comfy box above the RBB every derby. WSW fans show incredible restraint in my opinion, from some of the stuff I've heard dished out over the years. They can say what they want, I don't care and it doesn't bother me. What pisses me off though is the way they hide behind every word like cowards and cry foul the minute anyone challenges them. While it is not acceptable to be retaliating either, what's happening to these mouth runners like the hero in this instance? It takes two people to have an issue like this... 

[Case]

22 hours ago, mack said:

In Australia the Police & Prosecutors (representing the State) make a decision regarding charging for an offence. The victim is only a witness.

What do police need to make that decision? A statement from the softcoq. No statement, no charges. The victim/witness could've said "nah, it was a nudge, it was nothing, and i also gave George some cheek too. So lets move on". But nah, he gave a statement to police over a nudge. Soft. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Case

[mack]

1 hour ago, Case said:

What do police need to make that decision? A statement from the softcoq. No statement, no charges. The victim/witness could've said "nah, it was a nudge, it was nothing, and i also gave George some cheek too. So lets move on". But nah, he gave a statement to police over a nudge. Soft. 

No they don't. They have the incident on camera with 50 witnesses.

[CaptainJess]

3 hours ago, Case said:

What do police need to make that decision? A statement from the softcoq. No statement, no charges. The victim/witness could've said "nah, it was a nudge, it was nothing, and i also gave George some cheek too. So lets move on". But nah, he gave a statement to police over a nudge. Soft. 

The police don't need anything from the victims or witnesses. It's a misconception in Australia that victims can "press charges". They can't. 

It's purely up to the police's discretion whether they choose to pursue a conviction. However, in saying that, they will take into consideration the wishes of the victim. If the victim wants them to and they have enough evidence, most likely they will.

If the victim says don't worry about it and it was a relatively minor offence that isn't worth the time or effort, then often they will let it slide. 

In this case, the publicity and the celebrity factor would have played a big part. The police need to be seen to be doing something. It's like road rage incidents that make it on TV. The police will always usually prosecute because it has made prime time TV. 

Obviously since this GC thing has gone to court, the victim and/or witnesses would have been subpoenaed to give evidence alongside the video footage. Once they've been subpoenaed, they are legally required to give evidence. It is a possibility that he actually never gave a statement after the incident. I doubt it because he probably did, but they don't need it before they press charges.

[Case]

Lets say I punch Johnno at the pub. Everyone in the pub saw it.

A patron calls the police. Johnno says to the cops, "nah I'm not gonna provide a statement".

Are you guys saying that because there were witnesses at the pub, the police can still charge me with Common Assault (with no statement from Johnno)?

If the police were going to charge me with something, it better not be common assault upon Johnno. Because if they did, the matter will be thrown out of court and I'll have costs awarded to me for negligence by the police.

The charge of common assault requires three elements:

1) A person

2) assaults

3) a victim

Without all three elements, there is no prima facie case for common assault.

Jess, I understand where you are coming from when you say citizens don't press charges and that it's the the police who do. It's true that police/prosecutor/crown/state/Regina (her Majesty) prosecutes criminal cases. However, some criminal offences do not require a victim (eg the offence of drug possession) but other criminal charges do require a victim.

In GC's case, a charge of common assault, the police/prosecutor requires a statement from the victim for the charge to stand.

 

With the road rage incidents, the police can prosecute the 'rager' on traffic infringements. These traffic infringements  do not require the victim to come forward (much like a speeding fine -  no victim required, if you speed, then you can get a speeding fine). If the police wish to charge the rager for something like assault then the police would have to track the victim down and get a statement from them.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Case

[CaptainJess]

That's exactly what I'm saying. If the police deem the offence serious enough, the can press whatever charges they want regardless of whether they have a statement from the victim or not. 

Witness statements would be enough to take the case to court. They would then subpoena Johnno to give evidence in court and if he didn't, he would be held in contempt. 

This doesn't happen all the time because police don't want the paper work and the hassle of going to court. But it does happen every now and again. If the police think the incident was serious enough and that the perpetrator needs to be dealt with, they will press charges regardless of a complying victim. 

The court would certainly not throw it out. I'm intrigued as to why you think the police would be considered negligent. While I was at law school, I did read cases of police negligence but never like the scenario you gave. I'd be interested if you could provide some precedent.

Also, those are not the elements for common assault. I won't get bogged down in case law but it pretty much boils down to these four points - 1) There was some sort of application of force 2) The conduct was done without the consent of the victim 3) the offender knowingly undertook the reckless behaviour and 4) the conduct was without lawful excuse. I can provide a reference if you wish.

All of these elements can be proven without a statement from the victim. Witness accounts and/or footage of the incident would be enough. A victim statement is never "required". How do you think they prosecute cold cases, murder, manslaughter etc.?

As for road rage incidents, I was a witness to a road rage incident and had dash cam footage. It was featured on every news station in Sydney. They prosecuted the accused common assault without a statement from the victim. My footage and statement as a witness was enough for it to progress. 

I'm happy to debate you on the law, but please bring precedents and cases to back up your claims.

[Case]

So there can be a situation whereby I am charged for assault with no assault victim cooperating with police. The police have hauled me to court hoping I'll plead guilty and not take the matter to trial. Easy day at the office for the police then!

If I do take it to trial, then the police will compel the victim to turn up to court to say "I told the police I didn't want to do anything about the nudge but the police insisted I come here and told me I will be held in contempt if I didn't show up to trial today, so meh I'm here and I've had to take a day off work to be here 😠"

Sounds a bit unfair for the accused 😕😕 (and victim) .

 

At the end of the day, I guess what Im trying to get at is this incident with GC was trivial and it need not have ended in the courts. 

[Johnno]

13 hours ago, Case said:

Lets say I punch Johnno at the pub. Everyone in the pub saw it.

A patron calls the police. Johnno says to the cops, "nah I'm not gonna provide a statement".

Are you guys saying that because there were witnesses at the pub, the police can still charge me with Common Assault (with no statement from Johnno)?

If the police were going to charge me with something, it better not be common assault upon Johnno. Because if they did, the matter will be thrown out of court and I'll have costs awarded to me for negligence by the police.

 

hey, leave me out of it  

 

One thing that i still cant work out with GC, as an MV fan, what was he doing in front of the cove post match?

Edited September 11, 2017 by Johnno

[DinoPresinger]

Yes Case that is exactly what happens. What the court will try to find oit is whether there was

1) An act

2) Causing actual physical contact

3)With intent(or recklessness)to do the act

4) Without lawful excuse

If they are made out then the defendant is guilty. Simple as that.

The reason for victims not having the choice whether to 'press charges' becomes obvious when you consider any situation where the perpetrator has continued contact or power over the victim e.g. in a domestic relationship or perhaps gang related activities. 

Under your 'fair' way anyone who can intimidate a victim sufficiently can get away with assault as much as they like.

[MartinTyler]

3 hours ago, Johnno said:

hey, leave me out of it  

 

One thing that i still cant work out with GC, as an MV fan, what was he doing in front of the cove post match?

Had the Cove moved around to the sidelines then?

[CaptainJess]

@Case While it doesn't seem fair if the victim doesn't want to pursue it, the fact still remains that you committed the act and it was against the law. 

Ultimately it is up to the police to maintain public order and to deter future incidents. If people weren't taken to court because victims said don't worry about it, there would be a lot more crime because people think they can get away with it. This is especially true in cases like the ones DinoP raised above. It's very open to corruption and manipulation. 

The police don't "haul" anybody to court unless they believe that have enough evidence to get a conviction. Also, if the victim showed up to court and didn't want to assist they can be made an "unfavourable witness" and eventually held in contempt if it gets serious. In the end, most victims will just show up and comply. They will get paid for their time and get costs reimbursed. 

I agree with you. It's trivial and a waste of the court's time. But in the end, an assault was captured on camera, broadcast nationwide and involved a high profile person. The police had to act or they would have been accused of not doing anything or letting things slide because he's a celebrity.