74 year old father and son arrested by South Australia Police for questioning rights
Channel: South Australia Community Watch
Date: 2021-08-03

⁣After nearly half a year, the charges were withdrawn at the pretrial conference on the 11th of November. Thanks for all the support.

On Tuesday, the 25th of May, my father (who is 74 years old) and I decided to visit Savers, a second hand store located in Kilburn South Australia and at the entrance to the store in between both sliding doors we encountered a C  o  vid SAfe check in and a table with a manual check in form being staffed by a team member. We were advised that we must check in and decided to question this requirement in relation to the Privacy Act 1988 Section 94H. Two managers approached us and an unnamed manager told me that what I was referring to on my phone, which was the Privacy act, was just a piece of paper. The second manager told me that they base their requirements on the C  o  vid SAfe FAQ sheet for businesses and that they were calling the police. Two female police officers arrived 10 minutes later.

During the encounter ⁣I (individual filming) was first accused of causing a disturbance, told to leave, then told that I can stay, Later advised I was being warned, then accused of an offense relating to not signing in despite not having entered the store, then told that it doesn’t matter what offense I committed and that I have to provide my details regardless. I agreed to provide my details while still attempting to clarify what offense I had committed, given “three seconds” and subsequently arrested along with my father. According to the bail agreement the charged offenses I allegedly committed was “Disobey EMA Direction / Refuse Name” and my father was charged with, as written on his bail agreement “Dsobey requirement under Emergency Management Act, Refuse name and address”. My father was never directly asked for anything and only spoke a handful of words while being behind me during the entirety of the encounter. According to the South Australia Emergency Management Act 2004 part 5 section 31 (1), “An authorised officer may direct a person who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offense against this Act to state the person’s full name and usual place of residence and to produce evidence of the person’s identity.”

Court hearing related to charges has occurred on the 2nd of August at the Adelaide Magistrates Court to which has provided us (Identical to both myself and my father) with a Facts of Charge sheet outlining the following:

Charge(s):

EM (Emergency Management Act of South Australia 2004) 31 (2) Fail to Give Identity to an authorised officer
SO (Summary Offenses Act of South Australia 1953) 74a (3) (a) Refuse Name and Address

Facts of Charge:
***BRIEF OVERVIEW***
The accused in the matter is ___________ DOB: 29/9/1946 (INCORRECT BIRTH DATE LISTED) of ____________________
The co-accused in this matter is ____________ DOB: __/__/____ of _______________________
Count 1 - Fail to give identity to an authorised officer
On Tuesday the 25th of May 2021, the accused did not immediately comply with a direction of an authorised officer to state full name and usual place of residence and produce evidence of identity.
CHARGED CONJOINTLY WITH _____________

***POLICE VERSION****
At about 5:00 pm on Tuesday the 25th of May 2021, Police WRIGHT/HUYNH attended at SAVERS at 400 Churchill Road, KILBURN after reports two males refusing to sign into the store with their details or Quick Response (QR) code for the purpose of tracking C  ov id-19

On Arrival, the reporting person stated that the accused and co-accused attempted to enter the store without first providing their details or signing in with the QR code. Police spoke with the accused and co-accused who stated they did not have to provide their details. Police directed them to state their details under Section 31 of the Emergency Management Act or leave the store. The accused and co-accused refused to provide and continued to be uncooperative with police.

At about 5:15 pm, Police LYMBEROPOULOS/ARMSTRONG-WOODLAND attended to assist.

Police subsequently arrested the accused and co-accused for failing to provide their details to an authorised officer.

The accused was handcuffed to the rear and given his arrest rights, safety searched before being placed into the rear of a police vehicle an conveyed to the Port Adelaide Cell complex.

The accused was then charged and granted bailed.
The accused's identity was confirmed by police computer systems (SHEILD)    ------ ( Personal note:THE DATE OF BIRTH NOTED IS CLEARLY INCORRECT so this is a lie)
The entire incident was capture on Police issued Body Worn Video.

The trial has been adjourned until 21/9/21 at 2:15 at the Adelaide Magistrates Court.