4 July 2024

Community helping Tuck heal, but police stand by their actions

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
43
Man standing behind pool fence

Tuck standing by the pool where his neighbour and the police didn’t believe he belonged. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

The 38-year-old Canberra man of African descent who was arrested for trespassing at his own home says the sharing of his story has brought about some “healing” as community members have expressed their support for him and his family.

But the police are standing by their actions.

As first reported by Region on Monday (1 July), a Zimbabwean Australian (who has asked to be named only as Tuck) was arrested last Thursday when a neighbour at his Narrabundah townhouse told him he didn’t belong at the complex’s pool and barbecue area and subsequently called police.

Five male police officers in three police vehicles arrived at the scene a few minutes later, also disbelieving that Tuck lived at that address.

He was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, handcuffed and placed in a police van while officers searched his home.

They quickly unarrested Tuck once they realised he did, in fact, live where he said he lived, and then they left without apology.

Once the incident was reported by Region, other neighbours, as well as some of the wider Canberra community, rallied around Tuck and his young family in a show of support.

African advocacy groups have labelled the whole incident a terrible example of racial profiling.

Tuck has lodged a formal complaint against the police.

READ ALSO What year is it and what territory are we living in again?

ACT Policing bosses are standing by the officers involved in the arrest, however, saying no racial profiling had taken place and that the victim needed to take some responsibility for his behaviour when approached by police.

The ACT Government says it is awaiting the outcome of an internal investigation.

Police Minister Mick Gentleman told Region: “ACT Policing does a fantastic job keeping the Canberra community safe. There are robust complaint mechanisms in place for people who do feel dissatisfied with the way they are treated by police and I await the outcome of the internal investigation.”

In response to allegations of racism, Mr Gentleman said: “Every person has a right to feel safe. We are not a community that tolerates racism. Vilification of someone’s race or religious beliefs is unlawful.”

Mr Gentleman urged anyone who experiences racism or vilification to contact the ACT Human Rights Commission.

ACT Chief Police Officer, Deputy Commissioner Scott Lee, said the officers involved acted appropriately. He accused Tuck of being belligerent.

“The body-worn cameras have been reviewed and certainly the advice I’ve got from our commander is that our members acted appropriately,” the Deputy Commissioner said during an ABC Radio interview.

“They certainly weren’t racially profiling the individual and they weren’t racially motivated.

“They were simply responding to a complaint where they were trying to identify whether the man was, in fact, a resident.”

READ ALSO Party before conscience could be a problem in a modern political world

Deputy Commissioner Lee said he did not know how many police vehicles attended the scene or even if there were more than the two officers present who were shown on the video footage.

He said when the victim showed police officers his house keys, they said “that’s fine”, but wanted confirmation he lived there.

Video footage taken by Tuck on his phone (seen by Region), however, shows one officer saying of the house keys Tuck was showing them, “That doesn’t prove anything”.

Deputy Commissioner Lee said he won’t publicly release the police body cam footage of the incident, but the results of an independent investigation to be conducted by ACT Policing’s workplace incident complaints process will be announced.

He said he was unaware whether the complaining neighbour had described Tuck’s colour to them when accusing him of trespassing.

The Deputy Commissioner cautioned against linking the arrest to racism and said he didn’t believe ACT Policing had an issue with dealing with Canberra’s multicultural residents.

He said the man was arrested because of his behaviour towards the police and the “level of resistance” he displayed.

“When our police officers simply asked the man to show them the apartment where he was living, the man obviously felt that he was being targeted, which he wasn’t, and so he became belligerent with our police officers, which made it quite difficult for them to confirm whether or not the man was a resident,” he said.

Following Region’s initial report of the incident, Tuck expressed gratitude to the kind people who have reached out to him.

He said while he remains traumatised by what happened to him, the fact the account was being shared was “having a healing effect in the community as people share their own experiences”.

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I’d be wonderin if perhaps our reporter Mr Johnson could do a follow up on this incident.

It would be interesting to find out how big the complex is, and if all the other peoples living there are of a pale complexion. If not how many others would there be of colour, as a Rioter called themselves.

Also a bit of a background on the person who made the original complaint would be of interest.

Wouldn’t he have noticed Mr Tuck in the 2 months he and his family have lived in the complex ?

Am certain a follow up by Mr Johnson would clear things up.

That’s a very valid question to consider merc. It seems impossible that the entire demographics of the apartment block was comprised of caucasians. So given this resident had lived there for a while and potentially seen Tuck and others like him frequently why only now do we have an incident like this? Could it be perhaps not racially motivated but something Tuck said or behaved to trigger concerns that needed the citizen to make the report to police?

Here, have a straw toothpick Sam Oak.

I don’t know what value ACT Policing Minister Mick Gentleman has to this debate. ACT Policing comes under federal jurisdiction and Minister Gentleman has no day-to-day oversight or accountability for the force’s operations, despite his platitudes.

The ACT is the only jurisdiction in the country without its own dedicated police force. The lack of accountability and transparency inherent in ACT Policing does not do our city proud nor does it provide the proper legal oversight and accountability our citizens desire or expect. In 2022 the ACT government paid the AFP $800 million to provide police services over a four-year period.

ACT Policing is exempt from the ACT’s Integrity Commission investigations which are standard for all other public servants. Internal police investigations lack accountability and transparency and have become the norm when the force’s ethical standards are called into dispute. The ACT government is powerless to intervene.

All this from a Labor government!

ACT residents deserve better and should be outraged.

@Jack D.
My initial thought on reading your post was that you could have stopped at “I don’t know what value ACT Policing Minister Mick Gentleman has.”

Nevertheless, I was surprised to see that “ACT Policing is exempt from the ACT’s Integrity Commission investigations” and that the “ACT government is powerless to intervene”.

If the only recourse to ‘contentious acts’ by ACT Policing, is an internal investigation, then you are correct in stating that “ACT residents deserve better and should be outraged.”

Justsaying,
The only problem being that Jack is deliberately downplaying the responsibility and control that the ACT Government has for this service which they negotiate terms for and agree to.
To claim they are powerless to intervene is completely false and would be a gross abrogation of ministerial responsibility.

Is the contract public? Then we could say who is with or without current powers.

Byline,
the general agreement and other supporting documentation are here:

https://www.justice.act.gov.au/safer-communities/crime-prevention/act-policing

@chewy14
Thank you for the link, chewy

I had a quick (emphasis) look at the documents and particularly, the 2017 Policing Arrangement.

I couldn’t find anything that referenced any role ACT Government would have in investigating operational matters. The following clause, from the “Statutory Framework” section:
“The legislative framework for the provision of police services by the Commonwealth in the ACT requires that responsibility for operational matters will rest with the AFP Commissioner and that responsibility for policy and other matters will rest with the Minister supported by the Directorate.”
suggests that this is the sole responsibility of the AFP Commissioner.

So perhaps there is no provision in the agreement for Gentleman (as Minister for Police and Crime Prevention) to intervene in this operational matter. I think if that were not the case, the Shadow Minister for Police (who I now know is James Milligan) would have been all over it.

Justsaying,
I don’t think it would be reasonable or appropriate for the minister to intervene into specific cases, but the minister and government do have oversight into the setting of the agreement, the priorities, the policy direction, governance, controls and transparency etc. that is provided for under it.

It is not reasonable to say they “are powerless to intervene” for an agreement they’ve helped develop and freely chosen to sign up to. As the agreement says, the overall responsibility of policing in the ACT lies with the minister.

Thank you chewy14.

I noted this in the Statutory Framework, page 2: “Under the Human Rights Act 2004, a member [of police] is expected to act consistently with human rights when exercising a function under a Territory law (section 40) and any power or function conferred on a member by a Territory law is to be read consistently with human rights as far as possible consistent with the purpose of that law (section 30)”

My interpretation is that the Minister would not exceed his remit to write to the Commissioner asking for a review of the particular operation in terms of human rights.
The Ministerial Direction of 28/9/2022 also appears to show the Minister has capacity to push queries in relation to fair and equal treatment (2nd Focus and the final bullet points seem to provide contexts).

I have not bothered reading further for now.

Personal bias warning: over however long the ALP has led the local government, I have noticed nothing useful from that Minister in any role.

@chey14
I think that’s an area we will have to agree to disagree, as I believe due to the publicity it has generated, especially the accusation of racial profiling, it would be appropriate for the minister to intervene in this specific case. I do note that Gentleman has said he will “await the outcome of the internal investigation”. I’m assuming that “internal review” is the “independent investigation to be conducted by ACT Policing’s workplace incident complaints process” to which Deputy Commissioner Lee referred to above and is separate from the previously mentioned AFP investigation which has been finalised.

Justsaying,
I should clarify what I meant by “intervening” would be to directly insert themselves into the middle of an open investigation or call for specific outcomes/actions because of something like media pressure. Due process should still apply.

But I have no problem with the Minister exercising their powers as defined in both legislation and the policing agreement, similar to what Byline has suggested above, to ensure that Police actions are in line with standard procedures and the terms/priorities specified in the agreement and directions.

@chewy14
I agree due process should apply.

However, under the ‘powers’ cited by byline, I don’t see a problem in Gentleman writing to the AFP Commissioner to specifically request that the “internal investigation” covers a potential breach of human rights, i.e. by way of clarifying the scope of the investigation.

What baffles me is that they turned up at all, not that they were aggressive. When I returned home to find my house had been broken into and rang them up, I was asked if there was still anyone inside the house. I said I don’t know, so they suggested I go inside to see. They got upset when I said I don’t feel safe to do that. I’m not going inside until you guys come and check out that it is safe for me to enter. They weren’t keen to come out, something that baffled me as I thought that was there job.

Capital Retro4:11 pm 04 Jul 24

If he was wearing a hoody and smoking a reefer in Narrabundah no one would have even noticed.

@Capital Retro
I am surprised you didn’t add the third characteristic usually attributed to your inappropriate stereotype … oh wait, you didn’t have to.

Capital Retro10:02 am 05 Jul 24

Did I cause offence to your alter ego, JS?

@Capital Retro
Unfortunately, CR, you cause offence on so many levels, it’s difficult to single out one in particular.

Capital Retro11:05 am 05 Jul 24

I’ll take that as a “yes”. But I am not sorry.

kaleen_calous3:49 pm 04 Jul 24

Small country town cops with big town egos. Cut the hubris and swagger and show your paymasters (ratepayers) a bit more respect.

I think it would be very difficult to not feel targeted when accused by a neighbour of trespassing and then being confronted by FIVE policemen. Was there nothing else happening in Canberra at the time?

Turns out 5 officers was the appropriate level of response given he resisted arrest and even caused injury to one of them!

Julie Lindner2:40 pm 04 Jul 24

I must say I would get annoyed if police accused me of trespassing on my own property. Three police cars are a bit of an over kill!

I’m white (but tan beautifully in Summer), and I agree with poor Tuck. Just because some noddy wants to cause you some trouble you shouldn’t have to prove anything to the cops if you weren’t doing anything suspicious. It’s too easy to call the cops, make a false complaint and have the cops doing the harassing the complainer wanted. This has (is still) happening to me in a unit development, I’m lucky the police have realised she’s a nutter and probable stalker so now only ring me for my point of view when she complains but at the start, they treated it somewhat differently no doubt given the current climate. I have a Police woman to thank who seen it for what it was but the male coppers originally sided with her without investigating and did her bidding.

Perhaps the real concern is the behaviour of officers towards an innocent person outside their own home. Nothing like that has happened to me but, I suspect I would be swearing and protesting loudly – is that behaving like an “offender” ? If so, do all citizens need training in how to treat the police ?

Gary you don’t have a right to swear and abuse police even directly outside your property. If a police officer knocks on your door for example, it’s not acceptable to start abusing them. We don’t need training, it’s common sense and those that don’t understand can get locked up!

That is not correct. We do not live in a police state. People have rights in their own homes and yards. Police need warrants or just cause to enter a private property.

So according to wiki, the ACT has 731 sworn police officers and 5 of those attended this call out? must have been some description over the phone “coloured guy looking suspicious and there are a lot of white women around, help!!”

ACT policing showing their strong profiling skills acquired from the AFP

I commend ACT police for their professionalism, courage and remaining calm in the face of a belligerent offender. Hope the officers involved including the one that was injured are receiving all the support and medical attention they deserve. Well done!

@Sam Oak
Of course you do!

How do you know he was a belligerent offender? How would you react if in the same situation?

megsy, you missed the obvious point that Tuck was not an offender, whether or not his behaviour was interpreted as “belligerent”. It is a classically racist deceit, to appeal first to any latent prejudice.

You may recall from the original article that Tuck encouraged the “neighbour” to call the police when that was threatened, so it would have been quite a shock when the police assumed the neighbour’s side. Note the discrepancy between police report and recorded video regarding response to Tuck having his keys.

Sam Oak has unavoidably made both his prejudices and his inability to deal with critiques quite clear, so he is merely trolling now.

Megsy it said he was belligerent in the official police statement. I would have acted calmly and cooperated with police. I would not have pulled my phone out to start recording.

Are you the neighbour Sam Oak?

Lovely White Previliged comment Sam lovely

Sam, you actually believe official police statements to be accurate? You are incredibly naive! They write what suits their purposes at the time.

Psycho who do you believe if not the police? Tik tok influencers?

Stephen Saunders10:53 am 04 Jul 24

Tuck, next time you’re suddenly surrounded by five beefy cops for no reason, Mr Gentleman indicates what to do. No “belligerence” please. Show some respect – kiss their boots.

Deputy Commissioner is so convinced the officers did the right thing that there is no need for anyone to see the bodycam footage.

Just take his word for it…

Deputy Commissioner knows what’s on the video but not that there were five officers present for a trespassing complaint.

Seriously?

Apparently there’s no need for an independent investigation. The police will do their own. Only an idiot would think they can be objective, given their vested interest.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.