Spit weaponised during lockdown
POLICE officers were forced to go into isolation during lockdown after offenders claiming to have coronavirus used spit as a weapon, the police association says.
There were increased reports of spitting at police during the lockdown period, and officers fearing they had been infected with the virus were unable to go home to their families, Police Association president Chris Cahill said.
‘‘There was a significant number of events where people used the threat of Covid when they spat at officers and said ‘I’ve got Covid’. If we had widespread transmission police would have been... affected by this.’’
Cahill said it was more common for police to get spat at than people realised.
‘‘It’s not just stress for the officers, it’s stress for their families when they can’t go home. In Covid-19 times that makes it even worse, because of the risk of contracting that and not wanting to take that risk home to their family.
‘‘A number of officers had to be isolated for a few days while the person who spat was tested to see if they were positive or negative.’’
As well as coronavirus testing, police had to wait for multiple other test results, including HIV and hepatitis. ‘‘At least with a punch you know the consequences then and there, but spitting you’re waiting weeks sometimes,’’ Cahill said.
In Hamilton a 20-year-old man appeared in court after spitting at police while being arrested during lockdown.
Police were called to a central Hamilton supermarket in April after the man had been suspected of shoplifting.
After arresting the man he tried to flee and while being detained he spat at officers numerous times.
When people spat at police, officers had the option of using a spit hood, which was first introduced in about 2009.
Data shows police are spat at between 300 and 400 times a year, with spit hoods used in about half of those, police national manager response and operations Superintendent Andrew Sissons said.
The hoods had been used about 180 times a year since 2015, but he said Covid-19 pushed spitting into the limelight.
‘‘You don’t know what kind of infection people are carrying, it was a big concern around Covid.
‘‘I think our staff and the community in general are more conscious of spitting and the spread of diseases, so I would suggest it’s at the forefront of people’s minds.’’
While no conclusive data showed there had been an increase in spitting at police during lockdown, Sissons said they were more conscious of the likelihood of it having an impact on their staff.
Having been spat at himself, he said it was ‘‘really gross’’.
‘‘I have been at the receiving end of it. You’re left with this horrible feeling of not knowing what health conditions the person has got.
‘‘[You wonder] am I likely to get something, am I going to suffer the consequences of that and am I going to be taking that home to my family. It’s not a good feeling.’’
throw out two of the six grounds for Dunn’s case, including one about the concept of vicarious liability – the premise that, as his employer, Tait was responsible for Boucher’s actions even if they didn’t know about them. Tait was ordered to pay costs and Black is permitted to pursue that argument at trial.
The trial has been much delayed but Black is hopeful it will go ahead late this year.
‘‘If the world is right, I should win hands down,’’ says Dunn. ‘‘But sometimes it doesn’t work that way. I shouldn’t have had to go to this [length].’’
Asked if he’d be less trusting in any real estate deals now, Dunn says: ‘‘Absolutely. No way I wouldn’t get everything in writing any more. And it’s probably a good lesson for everybody.’’
Gary Boucher tells a different story. Dunn ‘‘knew exactly what he was walking into’’. Boucher has had to represent himself in court – he couldn’t get legal aid nor afford an estimated $80,000 in legal fees. At one stage, he earned himself a rebuke from court officials for filing a handwritten statement on lined paper without having it notarised.
Dunn’s lawyer Black described him in court as ‘‘impecunious’’ – and Boucher agreed.
‘‘I’ve got no f ...... money,’’ he says. He says even if Dunn wins, he can’t pay him anything: ‘‘I’m on the bones of my arse at 72 years of age.’’
That’s why he had to sell the house – a series of back operations left him unable to work for 18 months in his former job as a car salesman and his new job, selling commercial real estate for Tait, was ‘‘not the money maker I had envisaged’’. Boucher sold to avoid a mortgagee sale and, after paying off his credit cards, he was left with just $40,000 and had to move in with his daughter.
He claims that meant Dunn got a bargain – and knew it. Boucher claims Dunn showed off to two of his mates in a pub that he’d got Boucher’s house for a steal. ‘‘He went ahead and took the risk’’. Dunn denies this.
Boucher claims Dunn was advised to get a building inspection – and says he had expected Dunn to do so, then walk away. Instead, he says, Dunn refused, saying it was a waste of money. Dunn also denies this.
Boucher says he loved the house, and it leaked only three times in his 10-year ownership, during severe storms in 2003,
2004 and 2007, which he felt wasn’t excessive. He’d provided the Thermal Imaging report, showing one minor leak, which he fixed, and he attended to deck repairs suggested by the council inspector, as well as regularly inspecting and re-sealing cladding.
But he admits never supplying the council report, saying he simply forgot all about it because he’d not found the inspector very helpful. He’d called him out because he was ‘‘sick and tired of building inspectors saying ‘it’s not a leaky home yet’,’’ and wanted to prove them wrong. Anyway, he says, Dunn should have found it in the property file.
Anyway, he says, if the house was leaky, why hasn’t it fallen down yet?
Boucher has found the court process ‘‘very difficult and distressing’’. He had to supply fuller answers to questions from Black, who said he had been ‘‘insufficient, imprecise, incomplete, and in some cases, evasive’’ (a description Boucher found ‘‘highly offensive’’). He was also forced to explain why he didn’t provide any documents during the discovery process – telling the court he’d stored records in his daughter’s basement, they had got damp, and he’d thrown them out. He says he can’t believe the case has got this far, hopes it ends soon, and says he remains confident he will win.
‘‘I don’t think we’ve done anything wrong,’’ Boucher says.
He wants the case resolved ‘‘so I can