The Independent Police Complaints Board has criticised the police Rapid Intervention Unit for the way it evicted Graffiti activists noisily protesting at the Planning Authority last September. While finding some cases of excessive force, it said no officer could be condemned since no one committing any "suspicious activity" had been identified.

“It appears to the board, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, that the eviction operation was carried out in a disjointed manner. It could have been better organised so that the few episodes of excessive force could have been avoided,” the board, chaired by retired Judge Franco Depasquale, concluded in an 18-page report.

The activists showed up at a PA board meeting to protest against controversial plans for another new fuel station on Outside Development Zone land.

Two of the activists were bleeding as they were forcibly removed from the building by Rapid Intervention Unit officers, witnesses confirmed. Footage showed them being manhandled, sparking anger among the protesters who insisted they were doing nothing illegal.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had described the police operation as heavy-handed.

Report tabled in parliament

The report by the police board was tabled in Parliament on Monday by Home Affairs Minister Michael Farrugia, at the request of Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina.

The board heard complaints that protesters had been kicked and one had a drum thrown at her. Another continued to be beaten while on the floor.

But the board observed that the members of Graffitti who had given evidence  could not identify any of the policemen and link them to any specific incident.

It also noted that the evidence showed that it was not a policeman who had thrown the drum. As for the reported kicking, no injury marks or bruises were left on the protester involved.

Another protester had complained about having been held by the neck and having had a policeman hold his head down with a knee. The board however noted that this protester continued to forcefully resist the officers when he was taken out of the offices.

He had suffered no consequences, the board said, but the officer involved could have handled this case better so that this man would not have ended up with his face on the ground, arms twisted.

The board said the officers had not shown much skill and had used excessive force at times when this case could have been handled more professionally.

Better PA security

Indeed, the whole incident could have been avoided had the Planning Authority provided better security. No one had stopped or questioned the protesters even when they were evidently holding objects as they entered the authority's offices.

It had also been noted that some of the individuals did not enter through the main gate, but the PA had not taken precautions to avoid that from happening.

The board said some three or four of the protesters had strongly resisted the police efforts to evict them. After being dragged out, some went back in to help their friends.

“Some of the activists did not offer just passive resistance, but also active resistance,” it said. This was a far from the case of "none of the activists having raised a finger", as one of them had claimed on social media.

The board said the police had initially politely asked the protesters to leave. At least one outsider interfered and hindered the police operation, to the extent that he was asked to leave and was stopped from assaulting the protesters.

Read the full report on pdf below (scroll down from parliamentary question. Some pages are upside down.)