Two Queensland police officers who arrested and handcuffed prominent First Nations writer and academic Chelsea Watego have told a tribunal they did not also approach or investigate an allegedly “aggressive white man” who was also the focus of nightclub security guards at the time they arrived.
The Queensland civil and administrative tribunal heard this week that police arrested Watego, a Munanjahli and South Sea Islander woman, within 18 seconds of arriving at the front of The Beat nightclub in Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley in 2018.
Police approached Watego – who was standing on the footpath outside the entrance to the venue – and arrested her for a failure to leave the premises. Charges for that offence were never pursued.
Watego is taking action in the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal, alleging her treatment by the two police officers, whose names are suppressed, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of her race. In response, the state of Queensland is arguing that Watego’s behaviour warranted the attention of the arresting officers, and that there is no evidence to support her claim of unlawful discrimination. “The arrest of the applicant was lawful, reasonable, proportionate and legally defensible,” the government told the tribunal in their opening statement.
Watego’s opening statement alleges she was treated less favourably than the “aggressive white male” who was also outside the nightclub and had allegedly made racially abusive comments towards her.
CCTV footage shows Watego and the man arguing while standing at either end of the club entrance.
On Tuesday, when quizzed about whether police made any efforts to approach or investigate the actions of the white man, the arresting police officer said that when he arrived security appeared to be closer to the white man and “focusing on” him.
“Security were closer to him and in my experience security generally gravitate towards the person I need to talk to. They were with the white male. They were closer to him, yes,” the officer said.
He decided to approach Watego instead, after she was pointed out by a staff member at the club, who said she had previously “been asked to leave 15 times”.
Police bodycam footage shows Watego attempting to draw the officer’s attention to the white man, claiming that: “He swore at me.”
She was placed under arrest by the officer moments later, as she turned her upper body towards the club entrance. Her lower body is not visible in the footage. The officer told the tribunal she took a step, and that her movement towards the entrance in that moment justified the arrest.
The arresting officer said under cross-examination that Watego was verbally abusive towards police but she had not at any point been violent.
“She was arrested because I reasonably suspected she had committed an offence,” the officer said.
“I made the best decision that I could have in the moment and I believe I have made the right and correct decision.
“I have no idea and I don’t assume what people’s ethnicity are.”
The officer’s partner said police did not investigate the actions of the white man at any time during or after the incident.
“We were too busy dealing with Ms Watego. We did not have an opportunity,” he said.
“I didn’t see him as a threat or risk at that time. We’d had a very agitated and antagonistic person we were trying to deal with.”
The officer said he had seen CCTV footage that showed the man come within about 30cm of the entrance of the nightclub and later “doing pretend punches near the wall”.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Watego have amended her anti-discrimination claim to explicitly contend that her arrest was not lawful.
The amendment was made after the partner of the arresting officer said he believed Watego’s arrest had been justified by a law that provides arrest powers in circumstances where doing so is necessary “to prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence or the commission of another offence”.
Dan O’Gorman, representing Watego, challenged that statement on the basis Watego had already left the nightclub and was standing outside when police arrived.
The officer said the area immediately outside the entrance of the nightclub was “part of the nightclub” and this was “accepted practice” used by police in the Fortitude Valley precinct.
It is agreed that Watego had been asked to leave the nightclub at closing time on several occasions. She did not leave when asked “because she sought time to arrange a shared Uber booking before she left the relative safety inside … and was removed from The Beat physically by security.”
The case is scheduled to finish on Wednesday.
