Outcome of IBAC's investigation into conduct of Victoria Police officers in apprehension of person in Epping

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC)

Victoria's independent police oversight body, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), has concluded itsinvestigation into the conduct of Victoria Police officers in their apprehension of a person in Epping late last year.

IBAC Commissioner The Honourable Robert Redlich AM, QC said IBAC undertook a thorough investigation to examine the conduct of police and to determine if it was lawful. "The situation in Epping was dynamic and unpredictable. Police were dealing with an agitated and distressed person having a mental health episode, and whose actions had the potential to endanger themselves, members of the community and the police officers."

"Victoria Police officers used escalating levels of force in their attempts to get the situation under control. Less forceful options such as verbal directions, capsicum spray and a baton strike were used first, but did not work. IBAC reviewed the available police body worn camera footage, CCTV and other recordings during our investigation and it confirmed how volatile the situation was," Commissioner Redlich said.

"Considering all the evidence gathered, IBAC found the force used by police officers at the scene was lawful in the circumstances. However, IBAC has identified several areas of concern which present police misconduct risks."

IBAC found that Victoria Police officers at the scene did not inform the person of the reason for their detention at the time or shortly after they were detained, as required by Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. In addition, the police officers failed to provide the person with appropriate aftercare for exposure to capsicum spray and two officers directed unprofessional

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).