Latest / The Slippery Slope / In the Name of The King. Police in Victoria Australia have the Right to do anything?

Transcript

In the Name of The King. Police in Victoria Australia have the Right to do anything? · The Slippery Slope

• 0:12
  Hi Jay Fallon. So the other day I obviously had
• 0:16
  this discussion with temper the Ricard, she said she was going
• 0:19
  to send me a she had sent me a video Better reports on a Billy
• 0:26
  little known law in Victoria. I think it's based on the 17. 15
• 0:31
  Right Act legislation in the which comes from the motherland,
• 0:36
  the United Kingdom. But yeah, we have this law which
• 0:40
  is apparently still still enforceable in in Victoria at
• 0:45
  the moment. So they're taking steps to try
• 0:49
  and change it, but it looks like they haven't been able to change
• 0:52
  it at the moment. It's a little, to say the least.
• 0:57
  It's a little concerning. You know, the only.
• 1:01
  Anyway, I'll play this video for you.
• 1:02
  This is the only one that I could actually find, and I did
• 1:05
  read up a bit about the actual the legislation itself.
• 1:09
  So it is fairly disturbing to have this here, you know, in
• 1:14
  Australia. But at the same time it's it's
• 1:21
  disturbing, but it's not that surprising.
• 1:23
  It's not that surprising that it's not being removed either.
• 1:29
  Ends outraged at heavy-handed policing during the COVID
• 1:32
  pandemic can thank their lucky stars because it could have been
• 1:36
  much, much worse. Now I know that's a big thing to
• 1:39
  say because, well, remember this.
• 1:59
  Well, it turns out police were going easy on the public.
• 2:03
  There's little known law on the books in Victoria that gives
• 2:07
  police the power to do pretty much anything, including killing
• 2:10
  people if they fail to move on after being told to do so.
• 2:14
  And here's the important part in the name of the king.
• 2:18
  Now this law inherited from England is called the Riot Act
• 2:21
  and basically it works like this if a magistrate or a justice.
• 2:25
  Of the piece, reads a prepared statement to a crowd, telling
• 2:29
  them to move on in the name of the Sovereign.
• 2:31
  They've got one hour to do so in.
• 2:35
  One hour to do so. So yeah, like he said, it is
• 2:37
  based on the law which was brought over from the United
• 2:42
  Kingdom from 1715. Just the fact that they still
• 2:46
  got it on their books. Victoria, like I said, bought
• 2:49
  this law in on in 1860. The fact that they've got it in,
• 2:53
  they've been trying to remove it and yet.
• 2:55
  Still unable to remove it all. Unwilling to remove it.
• 2:59
  Very concerning. Continue anyway.
• 3:02
  And if they fail to do so, the law, the Riot Act still on the
• 3:06
  books in Victoria States and I quote.
• 3:09
  If persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously
• 3:13
  assembled happen to be, you know, killed, maimed or hurt in
• 3:17
  the dispersing, the offenders, that is, the police shall be
• 3:20
  free, discharged and indemnified of, for and concerning the
• 3:24
  killing, maiming or hurting of any such person unlawfully
• 3:28
  assembled as aforesaid. Now this came to light yesterday
• 3:33
  when MP's were dealing with a bill to remove references to the
• 3:37
  sovereign or the. Anarchy from various pieces of
• 3:41
  legislation now Mp's voted to remove references to the Queen
• 3:45
  from this particular act, but left the act itself, which
• 3:48
  indemnifies police from killing citizens who failed to move on
• 3:52
  from a protest on the statute books.
• 3:56
  So makes absolutely no sense why you would.
• 4:00
  Why you would attempt. Well, you know why.
• 4:02
  You're going through the motions to remove the reference to the
• 4:05
  queen, but you still want. Still want this law kept in
• 4:09
  Victoria makes absolutely no sense unless unless you think
• 4:15
  that this law may may be used in the future.
• 4:19
  That's the only reason why I why I can see you would want to keep
• 4:23
  it. Here's Liberal Democrat David
• 4:25
  Limbrick. I am unsure with what's more
• 4:29
  concerning to me, the license to kill without consequence
• 4:31
  provided by this act, or the fact that upon review, the only
• 4:35
  amendment the government felt necessary to this archaic power
• 4:39
  was omitting Lady the Queen and God save the Queen from the
• 4:42
  proclamation that allows murder. Kel and Liz, I'm wondering if is
• 4:46
  this like an amusing legal oddity, or is this something the
• 4:50
  Victorian government should repeal and get rid of?
• 4:53
  100% they should repeal it, which other countries have done.
• 4:57
  Our mother country, the UK, did 10 years before I was born
• 5:02
  because they recognized that it wasn't right for.
• 5:06
  Yeah, OK, look, guarantee, there's there's no question it
• 5:10
  should be repealed. We'll go through a bit of other
• 5:14
  information here. So basically these, this
• 5:21
  Victorian piece of legislation, the 1860 Right Act is, is based
• 5:27
  on the piece of legislation from the United Kingdom, which is
• 5:33
  from 1715, which is also where we get our saying to read the
• 5:37
  Right Act. You would basically read, get up
• 5:40
  and read to a group of I think it was 12 or more peoples who
• 5:45
  were unlawfully. Gathering and protesting
• 5:49
  something. And you would read them, you
• 5:52
  know read read the act to them, read them their rights.
• 5:56
  Read them the right act. You'd give them one hour to move
• 6:00
  on. So I'll just read for you a
• 6:02
  little part of this abstract piece headed in the in the right
• 6:07
  act was read. So this is it was based it's a
• 6:10
  brief history of the law of Crowd control which takes the
• 6:13
  Right Act of 1715 as centerpiece and.
• 6:17
  And recounts the measures taken to suppress public disturbances.
• 6:22
  When someone says that they read the right act or had the right
• 6:25
  act read to them, we all know what they mean.
• 6:28
  For one reason or another, someone has behaved in a way
• 6:31
  that impacts adversely on others or themselves, so they're
• 6:35
  cautioned as to the antisocial nature of their behaviour and
• 6:40
  advice to stop immediately or face greater sanctions.
• 6:46
  And when they say greater sanctions, they mean greater
• 6:48
  sanctions. So the Riot Act of 1715
• 6:52
  prescribed that we're 12 or more more persons comprising and
• 6:55
  unlawful, riotous and tumultuous assembly disturbed the public
• 7:00
  peace and did not disperse within one hour of being
• 7:04
  commanded to do so. Those persons comprising of
• 7:07
  assembly were each guilty of a felony.
• 7:11
  Without benefit of clergy and the offenders therein shall be
• 7:16
  adjudged felons, and that's felons, not Lomas FELONS,
• 7:22
  felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without
• 7:28
  benefit of clergy. Clearly the penalty was
• 7:32
  particularly grave and no doubt intended to operate as a
• 7:37
  sufficient deterrent. There would be writers who would
• 7:40
  have been well aware of the of the relative impotence of the
• 7:46
  constable and the watchman when confronted by the mob.
• 7:53
  So you look to have a law like this available to to state
• 8:02
  police in Australia to in a state within Australia.
• 8:07
  Very concerning. I've got no idea why they
• 8:09
  wouldn't just take it off as quickly as possible.
• 8:15
  What would you leave it in? Why would you argue?
• 8:18
  What would you push to leave it in?
• 8:20
  Why not just to remove it immediately?
• 8:23
  And this is the government's, which Dan Andrews is in charge
• 8:28
  of. Yeah, like I said, we've see it
• 8:34
  time and time again. New legislation comes through.
• 8:37
  This seems to be very or the harsh penalties or some really
• 8:41
  outlandish pieces to different legislation and people stand up
• 8:45
  and say, well, why would you have this in there?
• 8:49
  And politicians always say, well, this is just for extreme
• 8:51
  measures, just extreme cases. You know, we won't, we won't use
• 8:55
  it. We we hope that it won't ever
• 8:57
  get used. It won't ever come to that way.
• 8:59
  We'll have to use this kind of. We'll have to take those
• 9:02
  measures that we've mentioned in there, but you only have these
• 9:05
  things in your legislation if you want, if you think you may
• 9:10
  have the possibility to use it. It's a problem when our state
• 9:14
  and when a state within the nation of Australia has
• 9:18
  legislation on its books that is available for them to use and it
• 9:24
  shouldn't be very concerning. Let me know what you think.
• 9:29
  My name's Jake Fallon. Thanks for listening to the
• 9:31
  slippery slope.