Essay by Eric Worrall
Deanna “Violet” Maree Coco, who used a truck and flares to set up an illegal road block on Sydney’s main harbour crossing, has just walked free from jail on appeal.
Court revokes ‘false’ jail sentence for Harbour Bridge climate change protester
A protester who blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge to raise awareness about the climate crisis has successfully had her jail sentence quashed on appeal.
Published 15 March 2023 at 2:24pm
- Coco and three others drove a Hino truck onto the Harbour Bridge on 13 April 2022 as part of an environmental protest
- Judge Williams noted police had included a “false fact” and a “false assertion” in their case against Coco.
- He also said she was channelling her diagnosed climate anxiety into productive community work.
A 15-month jail sentence handed to a climate protester who blocked a lane on the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a truck has been quashed.
Deanna “Violet” Maree Coco, 32, was issued with a 12-month conditional release order on Wednesday after District Court Judge Mark Williams heard she had initially been imprisoned on false information from NSW Police.
Coco and three others drove a Hino truck onto the Harbour Bridge in morning peak traffic on 13 April 2022, as part of an environmental protest against climate inaction for Fireproof Australia.
Climbing onto the roof of the vehicle alongside Alan Russell Glover, the pair lit orange flares and live-streamed the protest.
…
He noted police had included a “false fact” and a “false assertion” in their case against Coco that an ambulance with sirens and flashing lights were impeded from crossing the bridge to get to an emergency because of the protest.
…
Read more: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/court-revokes-false-jail-sentence-for-harbour-bridge-climate-change-protester/s8gamn2z4
What’s next on the agenda of these climate extremists? Will they use mortars instead of flares for their next protest? Maybe blow up the next bridge rather than simply blocking it? Does someone actually have to die before they see some real jail time?
I’m not criticising or questioning the legality of Justice Williams’ decision, but this decision may have serious political consequences. In my opinion Coco’s interaction with the court system will likely be perceived by Coco and her fellow extremists as an empowering experience for disruptive climate protestors.
Maybe “Coco” has learned her lesson, and doesn’t plan to break any more laws. But given her long history of extreme climate action, I somehow doubt it.
I’m guessing Sydney can look forward to a lot more disruptive climate protests in 2023.
A few years cutting firebreaks with hand tools might dissuade these “environmentalists”.
The scary thing about the old KKK was that they had impunity, as they were defacto the special action squad of the ruling party. These demonstrators seem to be equally immune, and probably for the same reasons.
Impunity?
As in never actually suffering any punishment. All the witnesses disappear, or there was something wrong with the charging documents. Or all your cousins on the jury find you not guilty.
A person can act with impunity, because he has legal immunity.
I can think of many ways a person with legal immunity may be impugned; “one” can be impugned by those who do not recognise the term “legal”…?
What I am alleging is that those in charge of the administration of justice favor their political allies when charging miscreants.
I know, but you used the wrong word.
I did check, and I was right the first time. Immunity from consequences, according to google
impugn is a transitive verb, while immunity is an adjective.
At that point in the sentence, you need an adjective, not a verb.
You expect English to be consistent? I used impunity, not impugn.
> you need an adjective
You appear to have difficulty with English grammar.
He needed a noun. Which he used. And he used the correct one “impunity”.
(freedom from punishment for something that has been done that is wrong or illegal)
A person can act with impunity even if he has no legal immunity – all it takes is an unwillingness or an inability to prosecute for any reason
By failing to appropriately punish those who break the law, the likelihood of people taking justice into their own hands increases. If people see these disruptive extremist protesters being let off scot-free, the chances of someone deciding to give these protesters a hiding on site, or worse, increases. The criminal justice system is not only there to keep the populous safe from criminals, it also exists to keep criminals safe from vigilante justice. Failing to punish criminals both increases their likelihood to be willing to commit such crimes (or worse crimes), but also increases the chances that they will end up on the wrong end of a mob, or just an ordinary person who has had more than enough.
Many social institutions are currently failing in their respective roles, the police and the judiciary are not spared here. The police have become largely a force to protect the government form the people, rather than protecting the people. The judiciary have become much more radical activists, viewing the law through an ideological prism as laid out in Herbert Marcuse’s essay Repressive Tolerance. Any behavior which is in line with the ideological aims is acceptable, and even the thought of behavior opposed to it must be eradicated. This sets a particularly dangerous course for a society. I’d like to think that they are unaware of the dangers they are playing with, but I’m cynical (realistic) enough to conclude that a good number of them are fully aware of what they are doing. Nothing good will come from this.
As an example.
“If people see these disruptive extremist protesters being let off scot-free…”
hmmm…. scot-free? I picture a Scotsman in his kilt free on the mountain….
It will be far better for the Justice system to do their job, at some point in the not to distant future people’s patience will run thin and the Justice system will be left out of it. In the end the problem will be handled, let’s do it the right way.
The system is corrupt through and through. U S , Europe, Australia. Listen to these hearings going on in the US congress and the absolutely lame answers these leftest give when testifying before Congress. All these politicians and activists Judges, prosecutors etc all corrupt evil liars. Let’s just face it.
I wonder if the prosecution could have argued that you can’t have people blocking bridges in the middle of a (climate) crisis, effectively using this imaginary crisis against the people protesting about it.
Can’t be bothered to go hunting for the court transcript, but the police should have known better than make a false claim about obstructing an ambulance. Or maybe they were in on the scam, who knows.
“With respect Your Honour, can you elaborate on ” … channelling her diagnosed climate anxiety into productive community work …” Who provided this diagnosis? And what was the productive community work?
In this context, “with respect” renders non-actionable the real meaning, being “Put a sock in it you silly old ~^&&#@”
I have no idea whether the police entered a false statement, or not.
However, how do you prove a negative?
If a policeman testifies that an ambulance was blocked, and the protestor on the truck testifies that she didn’t see or hear an ambulance, is that the court’s proof?
Both sides in a court case have an obligation to prove any claims they make.
If you can’t prove it, don’t mention it.
Mark is right, which is why when Trump claimed the election was stolen he had to prove it, but couldn’t so lost … how many times was it again?
First off, I find it hilarious that you complain about Trump making claims he can’t prove, yet you do so on a regular basis.
Secondly, I was talking about in a court of law, so my comment doesn’t apply to this situation.
Third, Trump, as well as hundreds of others have presented evidence. In your minds, it wasn’t sufficient evidence. Then again, your mind was made up prior to observing the facts.
Trump has never lost, the courts have refused to take the case. Big difference, but I can understand how you would want to think differently.
“First off, I find it hilarious that you complain about Trump making claims he can’t prove, yet you do so on a regular basis.”
Says the man who claims the last 10,000 years averaged temperatures higher than we have today. Wrong!!! And embarrassingly so….
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
“Third, Trump, as well as hundreds of others have presented evidence. In your minds, it wasn’t sufficient evidence. “
My mind is irrelevant in this, it was the judges who through the cases out like confetti at a wedding. Hell, even Fox news’ top people including the owner, knew the claims were bogus and said so in texts to each other, why would a judge have any trouble with them.
“Trump has never lost, the courts have refused to take the case.”
Because…. there was no case presented that had any credibility. Keep living in la la land Mark… It’s fun for all of us.
Beyond that, I’m not aware of any court case on this subject that Trump has been part of.
Yet….
Had the police not provided “false fact” and a “false assertion”, what would the court have done? Oh well, things will get worse.
Eric,
It is good to know that you appear to think that the police should be allowed to lie in order to secure a conviction. And that quashing convictions that are based on false testimony from the police counts as “going soft”.
And perhaps not surprising for someone with such little regard for the truth you left out the fact that “Coco remains convicted of two charges of resisting police and using an unauthorised explosive.” But including that fact would put change the whole story to a simple one about correcting a miscarriage of justice.
………………..
I agree with her, but what about the right of people to go about their business? By imposing her will on others she is denting the rights of others. Isn’t that an important part of our democracy?
Seriously? Billions of deaths?
She’s delusional
“She’s delusional”
They all are.
Izaak, perhaps you didn’t read the bit where I wrote “… I’m not criticising or questioning the legality of Justice Williams’ decision …”. What I was trying to say is we need stronger laws and harsher punishment for this kind of disruption. And perhaps some more training for the police officers who prepare cases.
Eric,
you clearly are questioning the Judge’s decision. The title of the piece is “Australia goes soft…”. And as for more training, the NSW police have been corrupt for decades as shown by the Wood Royal Commission. A bit more training might perhaps stop them from their lies being so easily discovered but won’t stop the systemic issues of corruption in the force.
So despite being convicted of resisting police and using an unauthorized explosive, she walks free because it appears that no ambulances were trapped in the traffic jam after all? Isn’t resisting the police and using an explosive enough?
Such a sorry story. A delicate flower, Violet, has climate anxiety, force-fed by lamestream media.
Violets spread rapidly, often referred to as a weed, they can overrun and smother the existing surroundings. IME, they have no useful purpose. You need to deal with them quickly and efficiently to avoid the inevitable spread of an invasive, useless species…
“I’m not criticising or questioning the legality of Justice Williams’ decision…”
Maybe it’s time to do just that.
I could not help but muse over this miscreant’s name and had to drudge up this old reference, which is today a rather slang term for the mentally challenged:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0RqZ457YiU (Cocoa Puffs “Cuckoo Court”)
She and her ilk are indeed “cocoa puffs” with derangement over CO2 et al.
So unless she is proven to directly contribute to the death or injury of an innocent bystander she is free to reoffend.