Police investigate after Age photographer capsicum-sprayed during Melbourne protest
Link copiedShare article
The conduct of some Victorian police officers is being investigated after a newspaper photographer was pepper sprayed and video was published online showing a woman being pushed to the ground and sprayed by an officer at a violent anti-lockdown protest in Melbourne at the weekend.
Key points:
- Victoria Police is investigating after a media photographer was capsicum-sprayed
- The Age newspaper says it will lodge a formal complaint
- Police say it can be difficult to distinguish between protesters and media in a hostile situation
More than 230 people were arrested and 10 police officers injured after as many as 700 protestors converged on the streets of Richmond in Melbourne’s inner-east.
Police confirmed its Professional Standards Command was investigating after a photographer from The Age newspaper was pepper-sprayed while covering the anti-lockdown protest on Saturday.
The Age said it would lodge a formal complaint over the incident today.
It has reported that its photographer, Luis Enrique Ascui, was sprayed directly in the eyes while photographing the rally on Saturday afternoon, despite identifying himself as a media representative.
Mr Ascui said he was unmistakably a working photographer, with three cameras over his shoulder and media accreditation hanging around his neck.
He said he and other photographers were shouting “media” at the police before he was pepper-sprayed in the face.
“They just turned on me,” he said.
“It angered me, it hurt.”
Mr Ascui said he understood protests were volatile and sometimes violent, but media should be able do their job without being targeted by police.
“The way they treat media, it’s almost like if you’re there, you’re part of the problem, rather than there to do a job just like they are,” he said.
“Things need to change. We are working, we’re not there to have fun.
“Everyone has a right to work in a safe environment. I get that we could get hurt, I get that, but not targeted like that.”
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT9livBh0ig/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=14&wp=654&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au&rp=%2Fnews%2F2021-09-20%2Fpolice-probe-after-age-photographer-pepper-spayed-at-protest%2F100475464#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A4075.7999999523163%7D
Victoria Police said it was “aware of an incident where a media photographer was sprayed with OC foam while covering Saturday’s protest”.
“We acknowledge the media plays an important role in covering events of significant public interest,” the statement said.
“We understand they have an important role to play in reporting on these matters and liaise with the media to assist where we can.
The statement said Saturday’s protest “was a highly dynamic and hostile situation and at times it can be difficult to distinguish between protesters and media representatives”.
Victoria Police also confirmed it was aware of a video on social media “showing an interaction between police and a [female] protestor” in Melbourne on Saturday.
A statement said police “anticipated a highly volatile situation on the weekend and had strongly urged people to refrain from participating in protest activity”.
Despite warnings an estimated 700 people protested in clear breach of the Chief Health Officer’s directions, police said.
“The incident circulating on social media has been referred to Professional Standards Command and will be investigated,” police said.
Police union says officers were used as ‘punching bags’
Bottles and stones were thrown at some officers during the protest, and Police Commander Mark Galliott said others were trampled, suffering broken bones and severe facial injuries, including a broken nose.
Six police officers who were taken to hospital after being injured on Saturday have all since been released.
Yesterday, following the officers’ injuries, Victoria’s police union said it would discuss changing protocols for future protest activity.
It said it feared police had “become the punching bags” for frustrated Victorians in lockdown looking for a target.
The union defended the use of force, saying it was justified under extreme circumstances.
Victoria Police had taken the extraordinary move to suspend public transport into the CBD for six hours on Saturday in a bid to prevent thousands of people gathering and creating a COVID-19 superspreader event.
Videos have circulated on social media showing a woman being doused in capsicum spray after she was pushed to the ground by an officer, drawing questions about whether all officers used proportionate force.
Mr Gatt said police officers on Saturday were scapegoats for aggression, initially directed towards the Victorian government over its COVID-19 restrictions.
“Police have become the physical target for this violence, but they’re not the ideological target. Governments are the ideological target, yet it’s our members that become the punching bags for this,” he said.
Landmark capsicum spray class action gets its day in court
Police Accountability Project > Policing > Landmark capsicum spray class action gets its day in court
A class action in the Supreme Court could shape how Victoria Police officers use capsicum spray at public protests.
Class actions firm Phi Finney McDonald, supported by Inner Melbourne Community Legal, initiated a class action against the Victorian Government relating to Victoria Police’s use of oleoresin capsicum spray (OC spray) on protesters outside the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) in Melbourne in October 2019.
This is the first class action brought against Victoria Police in relation to its use of OC spray in a public protest and could set a precedent for how the force uses OC spray in future protests and in the public order policing context more generally.
The class action was initiated on behalf of protesters, led by the lead plaintiff, Jordan Brown, who was one of several people sprayed by police at the IMARC protest.
Mr Brown argues that use of OC spray on himself and other protesters by police was unlawful and in breach of his human rights when used as a coercive tool or where there was no immediate or proportionate threat to police officers or the public.
During the trial, he gave evidence that he was passively resisting and standing underneath a pole from which protesters had earlier hung a banner when he was sprayed a number of times by two senior police officers.
The State argued that the spray was deployed in self-defence and was reasonable and proportionate in accordance with the requirements in s 462A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
The trial commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 17 February 2025 and was heard over three weeks before Justice Claire Harris. Closing submissions were held on 11 and 12 June 2025, with a decision likely to be handed down later in the year.
In addition to seeking damages for Mr Brown and other group members, it is hoped that the class action will serve as a reminder to police about the dangers of using non-lethal weapons in protests and hold them accountable for the unlawful use of weapons.
This case further highlights the increasing expansion of police powers in Victoria and the effect that this has to stifle our rights to peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression.
This concerning trend was observed during last year’s Disrupt Land Forces protests which, coincidentally, also took place at the same location as the IMARC protest. During the Land Forces exposition, we observed the police invoke their special police powers under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, their designated areas search powers under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and, concerningly, the use of flash bangs and rubber bullets at protesters.
More recently, we have seen the recent expansion of police powers through the passage Terrorism (Community Protection) and Control of Weapons Bill 2024 that expanded the police’s search powers and scope of designated search areas.
This climate demonstrates an increasing militarisation of Victoria Police’s responses to protests and their disregard for our civil rights to peaceful protest with no sign of accountability.
Protecting our rights to public protests
Set against this concerning background, the IMARC class action is even more important now that the Victorian government is currently seeking to increase the scope of police powers to suppress lawful protesting. Legislation will shortly be before Parliament seeking to ban the wearing of masks at public protests.
While the reforms were intended to remedy against the rising tide of anti-Semitism from the neo-Nazis and fascists who hide behind masks, the reality is that a blanket ban would only make it harder for legitimate protests to take place and will not be reasonably proportionate to the law’s intended purpose.
Police need to be accountable
As set out by senior counsel during the closing submissions for the plaintiff, the police have an important and difficult task of protecting the community. However, this does not give them licence to act beyond the lawful scope of their duties. When police have acted unlawfully, there is currently no other mechanism other than to engage in costly civil proceedings to bring police to account.
We cannot simply rely on police to investigate themselves. In Mr Brown’s case, he gave evidence that he had initially made a complaint about the use of capsicum spray to the police themselves, but his complaint was dismissed as ‘unsubstantiated’.
The class action further highlights why Victoria needs an independent Police Ombudsman.
Ordinary Victorians should not have to engage in costly civil proceedings to bring police to account for their unlawful actions.
