‘No misconduct’ by police in protest clash

Make text smaller Make text larger

  • Police and protesters clash outside the House of Assembly (Photograph by Akil Simmons)

    Police and protesters clash outside the House of Assembly (Photograph by Akil Simmons)


A report into the clash between police and protesters outside Parliament on December 2 last year has concluded that officers did not engage in misconduct during the incident.

The Police Complaints Authority report also said the confrontation had left a “scar on Bermuda’s history”.

Police used pepper spray on demonstrators blocking Parliament “only when they properly believed that it was necessary” according to the PCA.

The six-person investigating team found no order was given from higher up to use the spray and the decision to deploy the spray was taken by individual officers, as per “use of force policy”.

The report added the use of Captor “could have and should have been avoided”, but for the “precarious position” officers were sent into by their commanders.

The group concluded that the incidents had soured the relationship between the public and the police.

But the independent body’s long-anticipated findings determined that 26 formal objections filed over officers’ handling of demonstrators “cannot be upheld”, although there was “no question that mistakes were made in the BPS at senior levels”.

Protesters opposed to the airport redevelopment project had earlier blocked the gates to the House of Assembly to halt the debate of key legislation for the proposal.

The most contentious episode of the day, and the main subject of a separate review by Assistant Chief Constable Chris Shead of the UK’s National Police Co-ordination Centre, was the deployment of helmeted police armed with Captor in an attempt to dislodge protesters from the entrances to the grounds of Sessions House.

That review criticised the planning and execution of the police’s tactics.

Last night’s decision handed down by the PCA began with an affirmation of the right to lawful protest, noting that the demonstration had been “generally considered by those participating ... to be a lawful and peaceful assembly”.

Captor was first used when a “bubble” of officers tried to open access to the vehicle gate, and ended up “surrounded by a crowd deemed to be hostile”.

It was used a second time in a bid to retrieve an officer said to be “in danger of injury from certain members of the public making up the crowds”.

Captor falls near the lower end of a use-of-force continuum, the report said, while more physical methods such as batons or tasers are “far more likely” to cause harm.

It also noted that blocking entry to the House contravenes the law and that protesters “had not responded favourably” to earlier attempts to persuade them to move.

Police had initially opted not to remove protesters after being informed at 10am by Randy Horton, the Speaker of the House, that MPs would not be sitting.

The report said: “However, later in the day, possibly around 12.30pm, the Speaker informed Commanders that he wished the House to sit that afternoon. By this time there were many more protesters. The Commanders ordered their officers to secure access to the House for the Parliamentarians. Officers were given orders to get control of the entry gates to the House of Assembly when, with hindsight but as also advised by some at the time, the better course was to do nothing.”

The report was unsparing on the lack of preparation and poor communication that affected the response, adding that senior officers believed that “if a Commander had been on site from the beginning” it may have made a difference.

It also described the circumstances that led to the “bubble” tactic being used as “torturous”.

The report said: “The Speaker had determined earlier on that Friday that the House would not sit. If it had been decided that the House would sit, the police would have had a relatively easy task of gaining control of the gates from the few protesters that were present early on.”

But once the Speaker informed the Commissioner of Police that he wished Parliament to proceed, officers mobilised and the tactic, settled upon earlier, was never reconsidered.

The next decision to call off Parliament was made sometime before 1pm but “did not reach the Commanders in time” to stop, and police officers situated among the protesters could no longer be reached by radio, forcing senior officers to shout instructions.

“This was a bad day for Bermuda, the BPS and the protesters, many of whom had only intended to be there to peacefully make known their views,” the report added, saying the struggle had “rekindled memories of darker times”.

Jeff Baron, former minister of national security, said the findings of the report left Bermuda confronted with a choice.

“Will we take sides and become further entrenched — further divided? Or will we set a table for the police, politicians and the complainants present outside of Parliament that day to have a respectful conversation?,” he said in a statement issued last night.

“Some will say this sounds too audacious and impractical. I disagree. What is impractical is letting another eight months pass without having a summit on such a significant national incident.”

Mr Baron said that he had “faith” that Wayne Caines, the newly appointed Minister of National Security, and Senator Jason Hayward could “facilitate this conversation”.

“Let’s give them a chance,” he said.

To read the report in full, click on the PDF under “Related Media”

You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.

Published Aug 11, 2017 at 12:01 am (Updated Aug 11, 2017 at 7:03 am)

‘No misconduct’ by police in protest clash

What you
Need to
Know
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

  • Take Our Poll

    Today's Obituaries