Australian Federal Police Press Conference

[Owen]

At AFP Headquarters in Canberra, the Commissioner Andrew Colvin would take the stand and would address the media.

​

"Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

At about 10am today officers from the ACT Policing Unit noticed a Russian diplomatic vehicle leaving the Russian embassy in what they presumed was carrying a boot full of military-grade and quite dangerous firearms. They had pursued the vehicle which refused to stop until it got to outside of the Polish Embassy. I may clarify that this occurred on the street and not on the grounds of the Polish Embassy, at this point officers had no entered the Polish Embassy. What happened was that officers requested, they did not have a warrant but they did request that the Russian diplomatic staff open the boot of the car for inspection. They refused and the officers had accepted this, there was nothing much they could've done without a warrant. At this point the Polish Ambassador had exited the Embassy with his family, the Ambassador was carrying a handgun in quite a visible holster. Obviously this posed an extreme danger to the public and to the police officers, at which point the officers had drawn their firearms and ordered that the Ambassador put his firearm on the ground. ACT law does not permit open carry, neither does any jurisdiction in Australia a thing. The Ambassador was also unlicensed to hold a firearm. While the Ambassador had diplomatic immunity and wasn't going to be charged with firearms offenses, the officers clearly had an obligation to seize that firearm as it was a danger to the public. At this point, Specialist Response Group officers were on their way to the incident. When they did arrive at the incident, numerous guards from the Polish embassy decided to come out onto the street, carrying what the officers would describe as a Category H firearm, that is it was military-grade and this obviously posed a significant threat to the safety of those officers and the general public. Upon ordering those guards to drop their weapons, the guards had proceed to raise them and aim them at Specialist Response Group officers and began threatening the officers, at which point the officers did fire upon the Polish guards. During this firefight, it is the believed that the Polish Ambassador was injured and he is currently being treated at Canberra Hospital. 2nd Commando Regiment was called in from Sydney to act in their role as Tactical Assault Group East, as it was clear the firepower of the Polish guards had required it. Once the firefight on the street had finished, numerous Polish guards had decided to exit the Embassy and begin firing from the Embassy. At this point the 2nd Commandos had arrived and began entering in through the roof of the Embassy where some guards were stationed and firing at officers. We're still waiting on the outcome of the siege which is now occurring on the grounds of the Polish Embassy. To be clear, officers only entered the Polish Embassy when it became clear that they were firing at officers from the Embassy itself. It is unclear the amount of casualties which has occurred.

Questions?"

 

[Moe]

BandNewTV journalist, Pedro DeSilva, from Brazil would stand up and ask, "Given your recent rise to nationhood, how is it that you trained so many special forces in such a short time? And given the short time that they have been trained, how effective will they, could they be? It seems impossible. This exercise against the members of the GA and their diplomatic staff, seems nothing more than a political stunt gone wrong that has unfortunately cost people their lives. If you could, would you rather have a do over? Perhaps your government could seek exile somewhere else for a time being, as it has clearly gotten off on the wrong foot here in Australia."

 

[Danny]

El Universal Journalist, Hector Romero would ask after the Brazilian's question was answered. "What the reasoning behind Australian Federal Police's block on Embassy Firearms? Knowing that it was going to destroy the sovereign territories rule that embassies have here."

 

[Owen]

"Now now, one at a time please."

"We will go to Pedro first. I am a bit confused by your statement, regarding the first part of your question, we've been a nation since 1901 and have had Special Forces for over 50 years now. And just generally the rest of your question is absurd."

"Onto Hector's question. If you decided to read the original statement that we released it was clear that there was no forcible surrendering of firearms. Obviously we aren't going to violate their sovereign territory, but many countries had VOLUNTARILY gave up their firearms such as the UK and Portugal and we commend for that. If they, however, brought firearms OUTSIDE of the embassy grounds, as the Polish did, then that's something that obviously needs to be dealt with as it's simply just not appropriate as they would then be in Australia and would have to abide by Australian law. If they did and we noticed these firearms, then we would recommend to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that their diplomatic status be revoked and made persona non grata. That's the only real leverage we have over this situation. We were never going to force ourselves into the embassies, we can't arrest them with diplomatic immunity but we can recommend to the Minister that they get removed from the country. Obviously in the Polish case, they had decided to have weapons out in public and this is as you can imagine, completely inappropriate and its our upmost duty to keep the public safe, so in that case our officers responded appropriately as they would the same way if it was any other person bringing a firearm out in public. Diplomatic immunity doesn't give you the right to start breaking Australian law, especially outside of the embassies. It gives you the right to be free from being charged or sentenced, so obviously the Minister's options are to simply remove them from the country if they decided to break the law."

"Any other questions?"

 

[Moe]

"Your definition of Diplomatic Immunity, as you said means you are quite in fact allowed to carry a firearm in Australia, because as you said you cannot be charged for it."

And, also, as we all are aware just because you have been a nation for a long time does not necessarily mean you have well-trained special forces. And given the unnecessary bloodshed, they are not that special, are they?"

 

[Owen]

"No, diplomatic immunity means you are free from being sentenced, trialed or indefinitely jailed in Australia. You still have to adhere by the laws and officers can arrest you if you pose a danger to the public. Obviously they will be arresting you and taking you straight to the next flight back to their home country, as that's the only thing they can do. But you can't just go around murdering a whole bunch of people and say "you can't touch me it's diplomatic immunity", that's just absurd and I'm sure many people around the world would agree with that. Public safety is our priority, if you can't adhere that you will be stopped and deported back to your country if you hold such immunity. Bringing firearms outside of your embassy is a risk to public safety and it's just simply not acceptable.

I can guarantee you that they are some of the best Special Forces in the world. If you want to ask more questions on Army's role in this operation, you need to talk to the Chief of Army."