Full Breakdown
Victoria Police's Use of Capsicum Spray Declared Unlawful in Landmark Case
12/12/2025, 5:57:40 AM
Court Ruling on Police Conduct
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Victoria has found that the use of capsicum spray by police against climate activist Jordan Brown during a protest in October 2019 constituted unlawful battery and cruel treatment. The court awarded Brown $54,000 in damages, acknowledging both physical and psychological injuries resulting from the police's actions. Justice Claire Harris stated that the use of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray was not only excessive but also a violation of Brown's rights to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.
Background of the Incident
The incident occurred during the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) in Melbourne, where protesters aimed to disrupt the event. Brown was sprayed twice by police officers as they attempted to arrest two activists who had climbed a pole outside the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre. The court heard conflicting accounts of the circumstances leading to the use of OC spray, with police claiming it was necessary to disperse a hostile crowd.
Key Findings of the Court
Justice Harris determined that the police's deployment of OC spray was intentional and unjustified. She highlighted that Brown was not posing a threat and was merely standing when he was sprayed directly in the face. The judge awarded $40,000 in general damages, $4,000 in special damages, and $10,000 in aggravated damages, which recognized the distress caused by the police's actions. The ruling emphasized that the use of OC spray in this instance was disproportionate and constituted a breach of the Human Rights Act.
Official Statements & Responses
In her judgment, Justice Harris clarified that while the ruling addressed the specific circumstances of this case, it did not set a legal precedent for future cases involving police use of OC spray. She noted, “It’s important it is limited to these plaintiff's circumstances, and the circumstances of this proceeding.” Conversely, police representatives argued that the use of OC spray was a necessary crowd control measure, with Sgt Nicholas Bolzonello describing it as an “effective crowd dispersal tool.”
Criticism & Opposition
Critics of the police's actions, including Brown's legal team, argued that the use of OC spray was a breach of internal police policies and a violation of human rights. Fiona Forsyth KC, representing Brown, contended that the deployment of OC spray was “entirely unjustified” and left Brown with lasting injuries. The police's defense, however, maintained that the situation warranted the use of force due to the chaotic environment.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While the court found the police's actions unlawful, there remains a divergence in perspectives regarding the necessity of OC spray in crowd control situations. Police maintained that they faced a “stalemate” with protesters, while the plaintiffs argued that the use of force was excessive and unwarranted. The ruling's implications for future police conduct remain to be seen, as Justice Harris will address costs in the case next year.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The batteries caused both physical injury to the plaintiff and were a material contributor to the plaintiff’s psychological injury,” — Justice Claire Harris
- “He wasn’t engaging aggressively with anyone, he wasn’t posing a threat to anyone, he wasn’t interfering with any arrests,” — Fiona Forsyth KC
- “an effective crowd dispersal tool that allows us to move through crowds” — Sgt Nicholas Bolzonello
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding police conduct and the rights of protesters in Victoria.
