Primary schoolteacher claims she was wrongly assaulted, cuffed, held by Victoria Police
A EASTERN suburbs Melbourne mum claims she was unlawfully assaulted, cuffed and imprisoned by police after refusing an early morning “move on” order.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A MALVERN mum claims she was unlawfully assaulted, cuffed and imprisoned by police after refusing an early morning “move on” order.
Lysterfield Primary School teacher Kristine Roose alleges she was set upon without warning after refusing to leave a well-lit area outside a pub as she waited for a lift.
In a County Court claim against the state for damages she says the incident occurred early on a Sunday morning in October 2013, not long after the rape and murder of Jill Meagher as she walked home from a Brunswick hotel in the early hours.
The 36-year-old claims that despite being sober she was handcuffed, dragged across asphalt, with her dress rising up and exposing her underwear, and forcefully thrown into a police van and held for 20 minutes.
Ms Roose claims three young women waiting with her were threatened with capsicum spray when they tried to help.
Magistrate Susan Armour acquitted Ms Roose of all charges in March last year, saying she did not appear drunk or stumble at any time, was not aggressive or quarrelsome and had a “reasonable excuse” for staying in the area.
In her statement of claim Ms Roose’ says she had attended a cousin’s 21st birthday with her mum and three-year-old daughter and drank two or three small plastic glasses of sparkling wine over four hours.
About midnight she and seven younger family and friends left to go to the Stamford Inn at Rowville.
At about 3.05am Ms Roose’s statement of claim says a hotel security guard said they could not enter due to entry restrictions and when she and her friends began dancing out the front of the main entrance the guard pushed them away.
About seven minutes later, as they waited for a lift to take them home, Ms Roose says Senior Constable Brett Hudson and Constable Augustino Nguyen arrived while on patrol.
Ms Roose’s statement of claim says she approached Sen-Constable Hudson to complain about the guard’s use of force but claims the officer was dismissive, suggesting that if she wished to complain she should “do it in the morning”.
When Ms Roose replied, “would Stephen Fontana approve of your conduct”, she claims the officer mockingly said, “you’re a name dropper”, before telling her in a more accusatory tone, “you’re drunk”.
Ms Roose’s statement says she denied being drunk and asked to be breath tested to prove it and claims Sen-Constable Hudson replied “a breath test is unnecessary as I have already made the judgement that you’re drunk”.
The officer then allegedly told the group to move on.
To keep the police happy Ms Roose says she told the four males to leave but remained with the women to wait for her aunt, who she had called to pick them up.
Ms Roose statement of claim says she told the officer they were waiting for a ride and would not leave the well-lit area outside the pub due to concerns about their safety if they did.
Ms Roose says she was again told to move on and again refused.
Then, despite not being drunk and not having committed any criminal offence, she alleges Sen-Constable Hudson said words to the effect of “cuff her” before she was grabbed by the arm and pushed to ground.
Ms Roose says she was released when her uncle arrived and told she would be posted a penalty notice for being drunk and disorderly.
After Ms Roose lodged a complaint with IBAC the infringement was withdrawn in November, 2013, her statement of claim says.
But in March 2014, Sen-Constable Hudson launched criminal proceedings against Ms Roose for being drunk, refusing to leave when asked and resisting a police officer.
Ms Roose statement of claim says when she refused to plead guilty to any of the charges three more charges, including being quarrelsome, were added.
Ms Roose alleges the officers had no reasonable grounds to arrest her and the criminal prosecution was malicious and substantially motivated by her complaints against Sen-Constable Hudson.
As a result of the police actions Ms Roose said she suffered grazing to her arms, legs and feet, mental anguish, psychological injury to her character and reputation and legal costs.
She is seeking aggravated damages because the officers’ actions were a breach and abuse of the trust the community places in them as officers of the law.