⁣⁣⁣⁣On Tuesday, the 25th of May, my father (who is 74 years old) and I
decided to visit Savers, a second hand store located in Kilburn South
Australia and at the entrance to the store in between both sliding doors
we encountered a Covid SAfe check in and a table with a manual check in
form being staffed by a team member. We were advised that we must check
in and decided to question this requirement in relation to the Privacy
Act 1988 Section 94H. Two managers approached us and an unnamed manager
told me that what I was referring to on my phone, which was the Privacy
act, was just a piece of paper. The second manager told me that they
base their requirements on the Covid SAfe FAQ sheet for businesses and
that they were calling the police. Two female police officers arrived 10
minutes later.

During the encounter ⁣I (individual filming) was
first accused of causing a disturbance, told to leave, then told that I
can stay, Later advised I was being warned, then accused of an offense
relating to not signing in despite not having entered the store, then
told that it doesn’t matter what offense I committed and that I have to
provide my details regardless. I agreed to provide my details while
still attempting to clarify what offense I had committed, given “three
seconds” and subsequently arrested along with my father. According to
the bail agreement the charged offenses I allegedly committed was
“Disobey EMA Direction / Refuse Name” and my father was charged with, as
written on his bail agreement “Dsobey requirement under Emergency
Management Act, Refuse name and address”. My father was never directly
asked for anything and only spoke a handful of words while being behind
me during the entirety of the encounter. According to the South
Australia Emergency Management Act 2004 part 5 section 31 (1), “An
authorised officer may direct a person who the authorised officer
reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit
an offense against this Act to state the person’s full name and usual
place of residence and to produce evidence of the person’s identity.”

Court
hearing related to charges has occurred on the 2nd of August at the
Adelaide Magistrates Court to which has provided us (Identical to both
myself and my father which was not given to neither us or our lawyer prior)
with a Facts of Charge sheet outlining the following:

“Charge(s):EM (Emergency Management Act of South Australia 2004) 31 (2) Fail to Give Identity to an authorised officer

SO (Summary Offenses Act of South Australia 1953) 74a (3) (a) Refuse Name and Address

Facts of Charge:

***BRIEF OVERVIEW***

The
accused in the matter is ___________ DOB: 29/9/1946 (⁣ Personal note:
INCORRECT BIRTH DATE LISTED) of ____________________The co-accused in
this matter is ____________ DOB: __/__/____ of
_______________________Count 1 - Fail to give identity to an authorised
officerOn Tuesday the 25th of May 2021, the accused did not immediately
comply with a direction of an authorised officer to state full name and
usual place of residence and produce evidence of identity.CHARGED
CONJOINTLY WITH ________________

***POLICE VERSION****At about
5:00 pm on Tuesday the 25th of May 2021, Police WRIGHT/HUYNH attended at
SAVERS at 400 Churchill Road, KILBURN after reports two males refusing
to sign into the store with their details or Quick Response (QR) code
for the purpose of tracking Covid-19

On Arrival, the reporting
person stated that the accused and co-accused attempted to enter the
store without first providing their details or signing in with the QR
code. Police spoke with the accused and co-accused who stated they did
not have to provide their details. Police directed them to state their
details under Section 31 of the Emergency Management Act or leave the
store. The accused and co-accused refused to provide and continued to be
uncooperative with police.

At about 5:15 pm, Police LYMBEROPOULOS/ARMSTRONG-WOODLAND attended to assist.

Police subsequently arrested the accused and co-accused for failing to provide their details to an authorised officer.

The
accused was handcuffed to the rear and given his arrest rights, safety
searched before being placed into the rear of a police vehicle and
conveyed to the Port Adelaide Cell complex.

The accused was then
charged and granted bailed.The accused's identity was confirmed by
police computer systems (SHEILD) ------ ( Personal note:THE DATE OF
BIRTH NOTED IS CLEARLY INCORRECT so this is a lie)

The entire incident was capture on Police issued Body Worn Video.”

The trial has been adjourned until 21/9/21 at 2:15 at the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

https://youtu.be/vbXImvg-b1g

PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO FAR AND WIDE!!!!!!!!!!

AUSTRALIA IS A POLICE STATE