Summary
“When a major incident occurs between police and demonstrators where there are questionable police and state actions, there are regularly calls for corresponding accountability. This thesis analyzes the realities of potentially using civil litigation and other non-court mechanisms to achieve such accountability, especially regarding how the mechanisms reinforce “conflict-solving” or “policy-implementing” tendencies. Injunctions are also specifically examined as they commonly occur in the context of demonstrations. It is suggested that property “rights” (as defined by Hohfeld) repeatedly trump the demonstrators’ “privilege” of freedom of expression. As a result of the analysis, three solutions are proposed: 1) an independent body who can initiate comprehensive reviews for a major incident when needed; 2) incorporating an independent legal advisor into the planning and incident command structure for major events to help prevent the concerns from arising; and 3) courts conducting inquiry-like hearings that incorporate the best aspects of both “conflict-solving” and “policy-implementing” approaches.”—Page ii.