Browse wBW ad-free: bercome a member for just $10/year!
Mark Hinchliffe·
NewsMotorbike news
··20 Comments·1 min read

Cop faces hearing over throwing object at rider

ex-Cop faces hearing over throwing object at rider

Almost 20 months after a NSW police officer was charged with throwing an object at a rider who then crashed, the court matter has been adjourned once again after a three-day hearing.

A video of the incident shows Senior Constable Brett Rossiter performing random breath tests on Hannahs Road at Narwee on Friday November 6, 2015.

https://youtu.be/IaLPPjFxWzU

A motorcycle rider fails to stop and a police officer is seen throwing an object at the rider.

Senior Constable Rossiter has appeared in two Sydney courts on three separate occasions for mention on the charge of “intentionally throw object at vehicle / vessel – risk safety”.

The charge has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years under the NSW Crimes Act.

See also

Hearing adjourned

The officer appeared in a three-day hearing this week. The matter was only part heard and has now been adjourned to August 18.

It will be alleged the officer was seen throwing an object at the rider, causing him to crash and suffer minor injuries. The video does not show any signs of a crash.

No more details are available and the matter cannot be discussed as it is before the courts, but we will follow up.

Tags
Mark Hinchliffe
Related

20 Comments

  1. I’m conflicted on this as I believe throwing a object at a rider was the wrong thing to do, how ever the rider also failed to stop and would have been prevented if the rider stopped, unless the rider had a reason being for being unable to stop it was 50/50 blame

    1. I’m following your logic, but it’s honestly really misguided. I’ll let Sean MacDonald’s response on another article explain for me

      “The Rider’s Actions Already Have Consequences
      Yes, I know the motorcycle rider broke the law […]. But as a society, we’ve already determined a consequence for that. It’s called a moving citation, and it normally comes with some sort of fine and possibly a point or several on a driving record. That’s it.”

      Just because someone is breaking the law, means that violence is warranted? No. If one believes it IS warranted, then violence against the unlawful officer would be a reasonable response, because the cop broke the law too. I’m guessing somewhere between reckless endangerment, assault, grievous bodily harm or attempted murder.

      Where’s the line? “You are speeding, so it’s reasonable to hurt you.”
      No. It’s reasonable that they receive a fine, lose licence, have their vehicle confiscated etc. Nothing else.

      If a cop hasn’t got the presence of mind to react with safety and lawfulness in split second situations, he shouldn’t be a cop. If there was malice in his intention, he should be behind bars.

      1. In this instance it appears violence was used to attempt to apprehend the suspect to gather their ID. Police can’t just write a citation to the registered owner, if you can’t prove it was them driving at the time. So the vehicle needed to be intercepted at that time. The law provides for police to use force for that purpose. Think stinger sites, road blocks etc. This use of force by police doesn’t look pretty and it’s probably not in line with training or policy. But it’s very likely lawful.

        1. I agree with The Stove.

          @Richard when you said …”Police can’t just write a citation to the registered owner, “…
          But they do! This is exactly what happens ALL the time with speed cameras, parking violations etc.

          I would have thought they would have charged the registered owner with;
          – refusing to stop/follow a Police direction,
          – refusing to undertake a breath test (with the statutory assumption that he would have failed).
          and then left it to the owner to prove he was not the rider (by swearing an oath and nominating the rider).

          1. In my state there is a septate section reversing the onus back onto the defendant for speeding and parking offences. Fail to stop and pursuit offences have a similar section that works differently. However, it’s still important for police to be able to stop people from continuing to commit offences and to grab people committing offences to get their identity. Otherwise the crims will have free rein, all they need is a stolen vehicle or stolen plates. Police should be protected in their good faith attempts to get criminals. Even if it hurts the bad guy sometimes. I would have stopped. Then none of this fallout would have happened for either party

  2. I’m betting he gets away with it. It seems like there is an unwritten law that the police can do as they please.

    Its like the officer whose car caught fire on Mt Glorious a couple of years ago. A witness saw the officer overtaking around a blind corner to try to catch the speeding motorcyclist (putting innocent lives at risk). And despite his own car catching fire at the end of it all, I believe he got away with it without consequence.

    Who was putting society at greater risk? Sure the speeding motorcyclist was, but worse was the police chasing him – he should have had more sense!

    1. Right you are red duck. One rule for the rulers, one for the electorate. But when police are chosen because of their low IQ, what can you expect. This rogue copper will get off, make no bones about it. When was the last time a PIGS (person in government service) lost his job over bad temper and assault?

  3. I agree with Dave, there is some accountability on the rider and he is the kind of biker that gets the rest of us hassled by cops. Having said that, cops should be held to a higher standard and the idea of him lobbing anything at a moving bike or even car is ludicrous and at the very least he should no longer be a police officer. However, the same as the biker is not representative of the majority of us, nor is that rogue officer representative of the majority of police. If only we could all just get along!

    1. I have followed this with some interest after viewing it on the news tonight. I agree with your comments about the accountability of the bike rider but my interest is due to having a little bit of background knowledge of this officer.
      In 2004, while suffering serious depression, my son lost his job & finally sought treatment which was effective. He found another job & one Friday night celebrated this at a pub at Beverley Hills with a good mate. They took a cab down there & had no intention of driving. My son planned to stay the night at his mate’s house nearby. Unfortunately he was bashed at the pub after simply saying ‘How’s it going fellas” to some men, let’s just say of ethnic origin.
      He went back to the mate’s house but the mate talked of returning to find those responsible. My son was already traumatised & desperate to just get home, so he hopped in his car & set off. He was pulled over by RBT, charged with drink driving .05. He begged the officers to just help him get home. The others were co-operative & the record shows that my son was too. However when a certain Brett Rossiter ordered him to get out of the RBT van, pushed him down the steps & repeated “Get out of the f…….. van, my son kicked him. He was then dragged to the gutter, grabbed by the hair & bashed. You can only imagine the impact of that night on someone being treated for depression! And then to have to face court! We would have pursued the matter with a complaint but just wanted the horrible incident over.
      For my part, I have just waited, as people like this can’t hide what they are. Suffice to say I think he is temperamentally unsuited for this job.
      I was not surprised to hear this news or to read of another incident where he dragged a man out of police camera view & bashed him.
      It will be interesting to see how this pans out!

      1. So your son consciously broke the law, expected the police to be a taxi service instead of just getting an actual taxi, physically assaulted a copper who was trying to do his job, then had to face court & be accountable for his actions… But the cops are in the wrong?

        Solid logic there…

        I’d probably question your son again over whether or not “How’s it going?” was all that was actually said. I’d bet it wasn’t.

  4. this is the same state where a bunch of
    coppers tazer a man to death, are called
    thugs by the coroner and yet not one is
    ever convicted, hell their leader even gets
    a promotion. from the gold coast to ballarat
    there seems to be ongoing examples of bad behaviour
    by police, yet there seems to be no political will to
    do anything about it. Favours owed?

  5. In most jobs this behaviour would bring instant dismissal at
    the very least. shouldn’t we be able to expect proffessional
    and ethical behavour from our police force?

  6. I don’t understand, why didn’t the motorcycle stop? If i failed to stop I would expect police might use force against me. If my bike was stolen I’d hope police use force against the person that stole it, especially if that’s what it takes to get the guy

    1. I’m with you. Hope the Copper gets off. Race off from a stop, you deserve whatever happens to you.

  7. Ahhh, NSW Police, never fail to amuse. Every week it seems they are involved in another controversy. Still, getting paid to run amok with a silly little SS Nazi cap on and not been held accountable does sound like fun…..

  8. June 6th, long wait for justice. Meanwhile no doubt Senior Constable Rossiter, yet another sorry example of poor policing, poor judgement and unsuitable temperament will continue on his merry way. NSW Police recruitment standards are way too low.

  9. I hear what you are all saying but!(I’ll get replies from the sheeple!)
    If you are not under arrest why stop!
    How many Police vehicles did i see 4 or 5 what a waste of public money!
    While rapist,pedophiles,dealers,etc are free to do what they like.
    Also I had a motorcycle stolen and when reporting to the police station which was 600 meters from the scene of the crime the reporting officer did not give a f###k! Because it was paper work.
    Have a think about this when they pull you over for a saliva,DNA (meaning drug test) what do you do?
    We they can only take DNA (saliva) only if your under arrest or consent to it.
    As i have in the numerous emails to and from from govt bodies, find out the legality of taking my body fluids without my consent and if I DON’T consent they have to ARREST me first.
    Which take a few Police off the road for a few hours to find out I am NEGATIVE.
    Sorry! but Australia is going down the Drain real fast.

    1. Yes, Australia is going down the drain very quickly, particularly in regard to literacy as evidenced by the poor spelling, punctuation and sentence structure in this comment.

Comments are closed.