OPINION: We’ve all seen it – the age-old gag of a clown throwing a cream pie into some poor fellow’s face – it’s canonical slapstick at its finest.
Well, recently Northern Territory Chief Minister Natasha Fyles received what was reported to be a crepe topped with whipped cream to the face at the Nightcliff market. The proverbial clown in question, Suzi Milgate, insists “it was actually a fresh cream pie”.
But apparently the age-old gag is not so funny when a public official is the butt of the joke, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insisting the incident is “no laughing matter”.
Although Milgate argues she never intended to cause the Chief Minister any harm, she has, at the time of writing, been charged with aggravated assault, released on bail, and is set to appear in court on October 10. However, the issue of whether the incident is a laughing matter, or not, is inconsequential in comparison to the questions this event raises about Australia’s criminal justice system and our philosophies regarding law and governance.
The assailant, Suzi Milgate, has been charged with aggravated assault, pursuant to section 188(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) (‘The Act’), released on bail and is set to appear in court next week. Milgate insists she never intended to harm the Chief Minister, and even stated that Fyles needed to “get over [her] f***ing self”. But notably, intention is irrelevant to establishing assault under The Act, moreover, this public lack of contrition may even impact sentencing decisions when Milgate faces court later this month.
And while we know that our systems of both criminal and private law do not condone interference with the person, one can’t help but wonder – if you or I, or Joe Blogs down the road had a ‘fresh cream pie’ thrown into our face, would the offence be treated as an aggravated assault, or ad lib slapstick comedy?
When a victim reports an assault to the police, it is the police’s prerogative to pursue a criminal charge. Statistically, we know that not all offences reported to police are subject to prosecution. In the 2021-22 financial year, 369,488 offenders were subject to police prosecution nationally, a 3 per cent increase from the previous financial year.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:
- 386,000 persons experienced physical assault
- 441,900 persons experienced face-to-face threatened assault
- 194,100 households experienced a break-in
- 374,400 households experienced malicious property damage
In total, these account for only 9.9 per cent of crimes reported that year. The number of physical assaults alone surpasses the number of police prosecutions for the same year.
Of course, there are numerous reasons why police may not pursue charges on behalf of any given victim – but in the present instance, would a ‘fresh cream pie’ to the face constitute an assault in an instance without such high political profile?
Would the police prioritise already scarce resources to prosecute Milgate if her victim had been anyone else? Judging by her commentary on the matter, Milgate does not seem to think so.
If not, then this incident raises important questions about Australia’s philosophies concerning law and governance.
If indeed the police only pressed charges against Milgate due to the profile of this case, they are – whether they intend to or not – making a public statement about what they believe the law to be. Not the literal law of assault, but the age-old philosophical question of what the law is. If indeed, charges were only pressed due to the profile of the case, the police are making one of two statements, either:
- That the function of the law is to act as a crime deterrent, or;
- That the maintenance of public confidence in the institution of the police, is more important than the actual exercise of police functions.
Additionally, if the same charges would not have been laid in different circumstances, then the rights of public officials may be construed as more important than the rights of everyday citizens; which could effectively undermine the principles of representative government.
That is – how can public servants elected by the people, for the people, to act on behalf of the people, also be more important than the people they are supposed to be serving? In the words of George Orwell, ‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.
Kate Fulton is a graduate of The University of South Australia and holds a Bachelor of Laws with honours. Her areas of interest are interdisciplinary jurisprudence and socio-legal studies. She lives in Darwin.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the judge handles this. The law upgrades the charges from assault to aggravated assault if someone in public office is the victim. Although it was the wrong thing to do the level of the attack was trivial compared to the frequent savage assaults that police never make known to the media.