A Sydney man was stopped by two police officers for more than four minutes while waiting for a train at the railway station. After that, the man brought the police to court. The judge finally ruled that the police`s actions were illegal imprisonment, and the man was awarded $3201 in damages.
The arrested man`s name is Sam Le, 24 years old, who is supposed to be the most commonly used Chinese or Vietnamese surname. One day in January last year, he was waiting for the train on the platform at the Liverpool railway station in Sydney, when two police officers asked him to show him
An Opal card (Sydney`s traffic card, equivalent to Myki) and a welfare card, (pensioner concession card), as well as an identity card with a photo.
Mr Le recorded the incident on his cell phone. According to the video, the dialogue between the two sides at the time was roughly like this:
Policeman: do you have an Opal card?
Mr Le: has.
Policeman: really? What makes me think you`re a smart fool, (smart arse).?
Mr Le:Sir, can I have your name?
Policeman: my name is% ¥# @, please show me your Opal card. Is there a problem with your hearing?
Mr Le:Sir, what you`re doing is unprofessional.
Policeman: don`t whine. Show me your license.
Mr Le:, I`m not driving right now. Why show me my license?
Policeman: there`s no picture of you on the Opal card. How do I know it`s yours?
Mr Le:, all my information is on the card. Officer, you just won`t tell me your last name.
Policeman: yes. It`s okay. You can post this video online, and maybe you`ll be famous.
The Mr Le: train is leaving soon. May I go now?
Policeman: no, you can`t leave until we have checked your identity.
Mr Le:, am I under arrest?
Policeman: no. Is this card yours? You didn`t steal it, did you?
Then, after confirming Mr Le`s identity,
The two policemen told him, "you can go now."
Live movie links:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-man-sam-le-awarded-3000-over-fourminute-false-imprisonment-20170316-guzrnu.html
The whole cross-examination lasted a total of 4 minutes and 15 seconds.
, Mr Le later brought the New State Police Department in court on charges of unlawful imprisonment.
One of the police officers involved told the court that he suspected Mr Le`s discount card was stolen because he looked "young and healthy" and that he was "dodging" when he asked him to show his Opal card.
The judge said there was no "willful" behavior and that the police should be "cautious" in the absence of "independent evidence". But it is "inappropriate" for the police to call Mr Le a "smart little fool."
The judge also said that police suspicion that "Mr Le`s preferential card was stolen" has no "reasonable" basis. The fact that "Mr Le looks young" is not a reason to "suspect that his preferential card was stolen," the judge said. And Mr Le didn`t appear to be dodging.
Evidence of a disability grant filed by Mr Le in court shows that he holds a disability card.
The judge also stated that the police did not have the right to require the commuter to hand over documents other than the Opal card and the discount card, unless the commuter did not carry the card with him at the time. And there is no other "relevant evidence" to prove that they are eligible for preferential treatment.
The judge finally ruled that, Mr Le had indeed been unlawfully imprisoned at that time, considering that Mr Le had been detained "for a very short period of time" and that he had not been "brutally treated", "handcuffed" or "held in a police cell", As a result, he was compensated for various losses totalling $3201.
The judge said physical restrictions or coercion "do not have to be certified" and that, Mr Le has confirmed that he was "detained" at the time.
Mr Le`s lawyers said commuters were not aware of their legal rights, so they handed over their driver`s licenses to the police without any doubt about their cards and Opal cards.
Mr Le said that he brought the police in court because he wanted to "let the police know through this matter that they cannot stop them casually without committing any crime." They are required to show their identity papers. "
"there was no reason for the police to stop me and ask me to show my driver`s license in order to verify that my discount card was stolen."
"they are currently reviewing the court`s decision," a spokesman for the new state police said.
The netizens were divided on the matter, with some supporting the police and some supporting the Sydney boy:
"the manner in which the two policemen spoke to people was too disrespectful. You can`t disrespect people because you`re a cop. These two policemen should be fired for their rudeness. "
"the compensation should be made available to these two policemen so that they know how to talk to others and abide by the law."
"I think the court should examine the usual conduct of the two officers on duty. If they often do so, then he must give a reasonable explanation for doing so. Police harassment is a real problem, but the term `illegal imprisonment` is a bit of an argument. "
"although the police said he was not arrested, he also said that he could not leave, in which case he was in fact deprived of his right to leave freely, that is, to be arrested and detained."
"if the fool had answered the police question honestly, it would not have happened. The police are just doing their job. Why sue them? "
"the police are just doing their job, why is this idiot`s request upheld by the court? If I had just shown the picture to the police, I would have left. "
What do you think about this?
From < SMH
