The Tasty Raid

Tasty was a brilliant nightclub. Fortunately we were not there on this night. The raid was an utter disgrace as under the evil conservative nasty Premier Jeff Kennett, the police thought they had carte blanche to do what they wanted, and they did. It cost the government a lot of money in compensation, yes that means us, the taxpayer. 

Someone I worked with back then received AU$11,000, quite a lot of money 39 years ago.

A couple of weeks later after the raid,there was a role reversal as a pair of female cops asked me for directions, which I was easily able to give them. They thanked me and I replied, 'I can be nice in spite of Tasty'. One rolled her eyes and muttered something I didn't hear. It was one of those rare times that I knew what to say and didn't regret saying nothing later.

This was published on FB by Monty BB.

Today, the 7th of August 2023 marks the 29th Anniversary of the Tasty Nightclub Raid.

On the 7th August 1994, Victoria Police conducted a raid under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 on the Tasty Night Club, a predominantly LGBTI venue held at the Commerce Club, Flinders Lane, Melbourne.

Four hundred and sixty three (463) patrons and staff attending, were strip searched for drugs. The raid attracted a large degree of media and community interest and criticism and sparked public debate of the legality and reasonableness of such a search.

Allegations of discrimination by police against LGBTI persons were made, both in terms of the targeting of this Night Club for a raid and the overall conduct of the raid itself.

The Deputy Ombudsman (Police Complaints) conducted an investigation which focused on the question of whether the raid could be viewed as discriminatory or indicative of prejudice against the LGBTI community; whether there were reasonable grounds and adequate evidence to justify a raid strategy; whether planning of the raid was appropriate; whether the strip search of individual persons was lawful; whether there were reasonable grounds for the search of all 463 persons; the conduct of the strip searches and a number of allegations raised by individual complainants regarding the attitude, conduct and demeanour of members in the course of the raid.

During the investigation, 20 police members were interviewed and 55 civilians were questioned or supplied statements.

A summary of the findings of the investigation indicated;

(a) The raid was discriminatory but was not, insofar as can be ascertained, based on prejudice against the LGBTI community. However, the appropriateness of adopting this strategy in the circumstances is seriously questioned.

(b) The contents of the affidavit on which the warrant is based are inaccurate and appear to be embellished. The affidavit should have been subjected to more rigorous appraisal by senior officers.

(c) There were deficiencies in the planning for the operation including the estimate of crowd numbers and the numbers of police involved, the estimate of female attendance and the lack of adequate numbers of policewomen and the supervision of and guidance given to the planning and execution of the raid. Planning did not include provision for strip searching of all patrons. This was a decision made by a senior officer after entry to the Club.

(d) Legal advice has been received, that generally speaking, Section 81 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act allows for the strip search of individuals and to that extent the strip searches were not unlawful. However, it is considered to be totally unreasonable to strip search 463 individuals. It is clear that the operational decision to do so was not practical. The conduct of the searches, in particular, the lack of privacy afforded to the individual, contravened Police Operating Procedures. A large number of innocent people were caused distress and inconvenience.

(e) The investigation of complaints against individual members in regard to demeanour, abusive language, rough handling and other matters raised by complainants has been inconclusive. There were no allegations of serious abuse against police. There is no doubt, however, from complainants accounts that patrons felt threatened and intimidated and that some members acted in a discourteous and unprofessional manner.

The incident led to a successful class action law-suit against Victoria Police with damages running into the millions awarded to patrons. This sum would have been considerably higher had all affected parties come forward—a large number of patrons, fearful of the repercussions of "outing" themselves in a public forum or reluctant to relive the traumatic experience of the raid, did not participate.

The class action law-suit was conducted by Gary Singer, who later became the Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne.

Ms. Sally Gordon was the test case complainant, which in turn allowed the class action to take place.

Thank you Sally for being such a brave and wonderful woman; for having the courage to take on such a monumental task and for representing your community with resolve. You have left an indelible mark on the history of the LGBTI community.

An historical moment in Melbourne's LGBTI history.

I Will Never Forget

We Will Never Forget.

Always Remembered.