Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697641787285.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 6.

What I wish to illustrate for the Committee, is a pattern of intimidation and harassment by police against journalists such as myself carrying out work in public space, on publicly-owned land, over the past six years.

7.
7.

One case in 2014 for example, I was battered, falsely arrested, handcuffed, illegally searched, and falsely imprisoned for a number of hours by of Victoria Police, while I was attempting to record video and sound of a protest action happening in public space, in Melbourne CBD.

In this instance, before the police arrived, the recording was routine and without incident.
But as soon as police arrived, they immediately acted to seize my cameras and sound equipment, along with stopping two other journalists from filming the ensuing police misconduct.

All three journalists were prevented from recording, despite the fact that recording public happenings in public space on publicly-owned land is no offence of the law.
As such, no journalists were ever charged with an offence in this instance, but threats were levelled to that effect even as other senior officers arrived at the scene, and even as police misconduct was pointed out to senior officers.

The misconduct of the police in this case was later recognised in a lawsuit which resulted in a letter of regret by Victoria Police in 2016, and a payment of compensation.
The misconduct was also recognised by the Parliamentary Inquiry into the External Oversight of Police Corruption and Misconduct in Victoria in 2017.

8.

Another more recent instance was in 2016, where I and two other journalists were falsely arrested at the direction of of Victoria Police for recording a protest action in Melbourne CBD.

The account is similar, in that recording of the protest happens without incident until the police arrive.
But when that happens, police immediately stop the journalists from recording, illegally seizing their equipment and then proceeding to make false arrests and detentions of the journalists, along with commensurate threats of prosecution.

All journalists on this occasion were handcuffed, detained, photographed, fingerprinted and interviewed, with each of our recording equipment and video files seized and not returned.
After approximately five hours of detention, we were all released from police custody but without the storage media of our equipment, and without charges.

9.

After months of many requests for the return of our equipment to senior officers such as and also the informant, we were still not issued with the return of our equipment, impeding our ability to work.

10.
10.

The threat of charges was finally made out six months later, where all three journalists received a summons to attend court for the alleged offence of “encouragement” or “aiding and abetting” alleged offences of the protestor of whom was the subject of our story at the time.

11.
11.

The charges laid against all the journalists present included an alleged indictable offence of Criminal Damage, which threatened the journalists with jail time, restricted their ability to travel abroad, and further impeded their ability to work due to the pending charge appearing on background checks for employment.

Page 2 of 9 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 12.
A complaint was made to the Police Professional Standards Command, to which the response claims that there was no wrongdoing by police in this course of action.2 13.
It was alleged by police that the presence of journalists at the location of the protest and the action of recording it or reporting on it constitute “encouragement.”3 Victoria Police acknowledged that none of the journalists participated in the protest action—that their presence at the scene was of audio and video recording the protest.3 It was therefore alleged by police that journalists being informed of protest happenings and then attending such events to document them constitute a “conspiracy to commit criminal offences.”3 14.
The outcome of this case was that after considerable legal expense preparing a defence, the charges against all three journalists were withdrawn by police prosecutors just moments before fronting a court for contested hearing in Melbourne, 2017.4 15.

The aim in bringing these two examples to the Committee is to show that there is a sordid pattern of how freelance journalists can be seen and treated by law enforcement agencies covering stories which deal with Human Rights or political issues.
This is as true in Victoria as it is throughout Australia.

Freelancers can be seen as a soft-target by police, because they have considerably less resources and no institutional support compared to their counterparts in mainstream media organisations.

16.

The effect and attitude of law enforcement is the same towards citizen journalists, or simply towards members of the public who may be interested in public interest matters and act to assist journalists or media organisations in publishing a story.

17.
17.

There are many other examples that could be proffered where members of the public have faced a similar fate for simply assisting a journalist with a story that they think is important and that the public should legitimately know about and be informed by.

I would be willing and able to assist the Committee in providing examples of this from my own work, should they be of interest.
As they are numerous and detailed, it would be exhaustive to list all of them here, but I trust with the two strident examples above, that a general demeanour of law enforcement agencies could be discerned.

Kind regards, Jordan Brown IFNM Press, Professional Freelance Journalist MEAA 9 JULY 2019 2 Statement of 3 Statement from Preliminary Brief of Victoria Police Informant, as enclosed.
4 Notice of Order, Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 12th September 2017. , Police Professional Standards Command, as enclosed.
Page 3 of 9 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34 Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the pressSubmission 34