Dale Ewins and Zita Sukys sue police after being shot at Inflation nightclub dress-up party
VICTORIA Police has been forced to hand over emails between its members involved in opening fire on a couple at a Melbourne nightclub.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
VICTORIA Police has been forced to hand over emails between its members involved in opening fire on a couple at a Melbourne nightclub.
Dale Ewins and Zita Sukys are suing police after being shot during a Saints and Sinners party at Inflation nightclub shortly after 3am on July 8 last year.
In a win for the pair, their lawyer Fiona Ryan successfully applied for a swag of police documents relating to the case to be handed over in the Supreme Court today as they continue to build their civil case for damages against the force.
Judicial Registrar Julie Clayton ordered the police provide:
EMAILS sent to and from police members involved from the day of the shooting until now;
COMMUNICATIONS between the attending members and the Police Association;
PERSONNEL files of five of the members, including any history of complaints of excessive force; and
BROCHURES and guidelines relating to the police’s use of hollow point bullets.
She also directed police pay for the couple’s legal costs in making the application.
Ms Ryan had detailed the case revolves around police negligence and use of excessive force.
“(Mr Ewins) was shot twice in the back. He was then tackled, punched, Tasered and handcuffed,” she said.
Mr Ewins and Ms Sukys were dressed as comic book characters the Joker and Harley Quinn and engaged in a sex act when the Critical Incident Response Team stormed the King St club and fired shots at them.
Mr Ewins, 36, was hit twice in the back, while Ms Sukys, 37, was shot in the right thigh and knee.
Police claim it was self defence as Mr Ewins pointed a weapon, later revealed to be a toy as part of his costume, at them — a claim Mr Ewins denies.
Ms Ryan said this would be the key issue in the case with conflicting witness accounts of what happened.
One officer recalls he saw Mr Ewins pull the gun from under a cushion, while another says the pistol was pulled from his pants or belt, Ms Ryan said.
Meanwhile, she said, a barman who witnessed the shooting told police Mr Ewins had nothing in his hands.
Questions were also raised as to whether police protocol was followed before officers stormed the nightspot following reports a man was inside with a gun.
Ms Ryan revealed notes taken by the police incident controller on scene before the shooting indicated he had spoken to a security guard who confirmed a man inside had a fake gun.
“He said he’d seen it and touched it and confirmed it was plastic,” Ms Ryan said.
Paul Lawrie, for the police, told the court it was no surprise there were varying witness accounts “in circumstances where things happened quite rapidly”.
He said if all the statements were identical than that would be “outside the boundaries of human experience” and the defence could argue conspiration.
“But that is not the case,” he said.
He implied the defence’s application for documents was a fishing expedition and argued that correspondence between the members should only be provided up until the member’s gave their sworn statements in the days after the shooting.
But Judicial Registrar Clayton believed all communication in the last 15 months since the shooting was relevant.
Ms Ryan said Mr Ewins is also seeking a third separate claim for false imprisonment as the father remained under police guard in hospital for three days after being shot.
He has never been charged with any offences, with police dropping their investigation against him in July.
The civil case will return to court at a later date.