Pregnant cop who had clumps of hair ripped from her scalp by a notorious anti-vaxxer breaks her silence
South Australian Senior Constable Anthea Beck told 9News how Raina Cruise attacked without warning outside the Exeter Hotel in October 2021.
'She just reached out, knocked the hat off my head, grabbed a handful of hair and just dropped to the ground,' she said.
Cruise, who describes herself as a naturopath and homeopath, had earlier assaulted two security guards at the pub on Adelaide 's Rundle Street.
The mother-of-four was heavily intoxicated and had attended a freedom rally earlier in the day but was booted from the venue over a row about mask mandates.
She admitted to grabbing one security guard by the windpipe and punching him in the throat. She punched the other security guard around the head.
Cruise and two men she left the pub with were stopped by Beck and another police officer tasked with investigating the assaults on the security guards.
Prosecutors said Cruise compared the police to Nazi Germany before she 'latched onto Constable Beck' and dragged her to the ground.
The entire incident was captured on officers' bodycam footage.
A court was told Cruise yanked at Constable Beck's hair and smashed the cop's head on the pavement as she yelled: 'I will smash you one-on-one, b***h.'
Beck initially worried the the attack might have impacted her unborn child.
The anti-vax mum-of-four initially avoided jail and was given a two-year suspended sentence after she was found guilty of the assault.
The Police Association asked the attorney-general to appeal and earlier this month Cruise was re-sentenced and handed three years and nine months behind bars.
'The suspended sentence was not in line with societal expectations of what happens when you assault police,' Beck said.
Beck said she felt 'relief and satisfaction' knowing Cruise was behind bars and said it sent a message to the community 'that if you assault an emergency worker, that you can expect a custodial sentence'.
She described her job as a policewoman as an 'an ongoing journey'.
'Being a police officer obviously has its ups and downs, and this is just a down of (an) otherwise very fulfilling career,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
We voted for and against the ban on Palestine Action. Now we have a plan to end this mess
Is terrorism really a vicar with a peaceful placard? As parliamentarians who are passionate about democracy and civil liberties, we know that both are under threat. A growing number of organisations encourage violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. MPs are besieged with threats, advised not to hold in-person surgeries and are grieving still for two colleagues killed in the past 10 years. Anti-migrant protests and threats are encouraged by the far right to take place across the country. Yet attempts to address all this are increasingly destabilising public confidence in politics, emboldening those who fan the flames of hatred by claiming a 'two-tier' response. Without change, the danger that someone will get hurt – or killed again – will only grow. Driven by both homegrown and overseas extremism, and social media algorithms, there is a growing trend for direct action to end in physical harm or destruction in order to get noticed. Proscription is the primary tool open to governments to put a hard stop to this, but with nearly 100 organisations and hundreds more Britons now labelled 'terrorists' in recent weeks, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain parity between the organisations proscribed within the public mind. For any law to be effective, it has to be workable and legitimate. For it to defend democracy, it must also not be designed – or be seen to be designed – to spare ministers the difficulties of dealing with dissent. Proscription puts the person peacefully expressing opposition into the same category as the person planting a bomb or shooting a bullet. We came down on different sides in last month's vote on whether to proscribe Palestine Action, and neither of us have ever supported the group. But we both agree what is happening now neither protects protest nor makes protest policeable. We have three shared convictions. First, no one – including elected politicians and the police – should face violent threats or intimidation for doing the job that we ask of them, even if we disagree with how they do it. Second, everyone should be able to protest and engage in non-violent disruption without being lumped in with Islamic State, al-Qaida or the IRA. Third, legislation to uphold our civil rights and to stop intimidation should be cause-blind: protecting those whom we wish to beat at the ballot box by enabling all citizens to be heard and parliamentarians to do our jobs. How, then, should the government respond? First and foremost with common sense. Urgent police guidance should be issued to head off the car crash that proscription enforcement is rapidly becoming, by setting out a test of proportionality for any interventions. Proscribing the original Palestine Action group was said to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after people with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty – some who may or may not even support Palestine Action but feel strongly about Palestinian rights – confuses rather than clarifies the government's intention. People must be able to protest about the horror in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not in Parliament Square. The government should be much more transparent about how it is upholding our constitutional rights. There is no free speech if one half of a political debate lives in fear of being targeted for disagreeing. We need mechanisms to stop those who use violence, threaten migrants or hound women instead of raising their voices to achieve their goals. Lord David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued that proscription should always be a time-limited process – and we agree. It should also be targeted at real terrorists whose explicit intention is to kill innocent civilians. No democratic state should make arbitrary decisions and must actively seek the consent of citizens. As it stands, how proscription is achieved – short parliamentary debates in both Houses and, in the case of Palestine Action, bracketing the organisation along with two far-right groups in a single vote – fails this test. To have the ability to proscribe a group as 'terrorists', ministers and government must do much more to show the public how and why that is the case. We must also address the glaring inconsistencies and real gaps in law these cases reveal. Legislation on public order focuses on specific practices; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits between this to recognise when organisations themselves encourage members repeatedly and deliberately to escalate intimidation in pursuit of their aim. Extreme groups create a climate of violence, leaving refugees waiting to be firebombed, Jewish citizens attacked, black and Muslim citizens living in fear, and women increasingly vilified. Getting the balance right means abolishing offences such as 'recklessly encouraging support' of a proscribed group and focusing instead on those who organise this criminality. Setting out how and when behaviour threatens our democracy – as distinct from criticising state policies – would also better maintain the integrity of the seriousness of terrorism charges. Stopping organisations that are not simply accidentally violent, but intentionally so, means a new offence is needed, distinct from the battery of existing criminal ones. This would recognise how groups that encourage violence and intimidation go beyond existing public order offences, disentangling non-violent direct action from violence or attacks on property and terrorism. The alternative – accepting that harm to individuals is an inevitable risk of protest because people feel strongly about something – is not tenable. Terrorism is different from terrifying opponents, but both are or should be criminal offences. The failure to make that distinction is both increasingly infecting the policing of protest and undermining the legitimate right to protest. Anyone who thinks this situation is simple – either an egregiously authoritarian power-grab from the government or a sincere intention to block violent thuggery – isn't paying attention. The status quo has come to mean equating peaceful witness with terrorism, and isn't sustainable. But neither is pretending there isn't a problem that threatens our ability to debate, disagree and ultimately decide in our democracy. Without action, it will be those with the loudest voices and the most lethal actors who win. Stella Creasy is the Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow. Peter Hain was the Labour MP for Neath from 1991 to 2015 and now sits in the House of Lords
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Father and son's heartbreaking last moments as they were killed getting ice cream
The heartbroken neighbour of a father and son who died in when they were hit by a car on a morning walk to get ice cream has recalled his final moments with the pair. Braiden Ashley Timmins, 33, and his four-year-old son Hendrix-Hemi Te Rongomau King were heading to a 7-Eleven service station in Regents Park, a suburb in the city of Logan, south of Brisbane, on Sunday. The pair were walking along Green Road when a white dual cab utility struck them shortly after 11am. Derek O'Malley, who has lived next door to the family for more than five years, recalled waving them off as he would nearly every other day. 'I see Braiden almost every day. We always wave to each other. He was walking past the house with his son. He (Mr Timmins) said they were on their way to get an ice cream, Mr O'Malley told the Courier-Mail. 'I said ''Oh that's great'' you know, ''Have a great day''.' He said Mr Timmins was holding his son's hand while little Hendrix rode his pink toddler bicycle alongside him. Mr O'Malley was later on the way home from his own trip into town when he spotted Hendrix's pink bicycle 'crushed' on the ground beside the crash site. It wasn't until he heard a cry from inside the house next-door, however, that he realised Mr Timmins and his son had been involved in the crash. 'I didn't put the two and two together, and then I went outside and started talking to (Mr Timmin's stepfather) and went ''oh my god, I just went past it''. 'I didn't think it'd be Braiden and his son, because I couldn't see Braiden. 'We continued talking and he asked if the bike was pink and I said yes it was, and he's gone ''shit''. 'It's still hard to believe they're gone,' he added. Loved ones have launched a GoFundMe campaign to support Hendrix's grieving mother in giving the toddler the 'farewell he deserves'. 'Hendrix was full of joy, cheeky grins, and boundless love. He lit up every room he entered and brought so much happiness to his family and friends,' it reads. 'His life was cut far too short, and we are left heartbroken, struggling to comprehend a world without him.' Queensland police confirmed the father and son suffered life-threatening injuries and died at the scene. Distraught family members were escorted to the scene by police and were seen sobbing near the bike. Two police officers surrounded a male relative who was doubled over in grief, while two women held each other and cried nearby. Police charged the driver, Trevor William Galbraith, a 41-year-old man from Regents Park, on Sunday night with two counts of manslaughter. He is set to face Beenleigh Magistrates Court on Monday. Authorities closed Green Road for hours on Sunday while investigators from the Forensic Crash Unit attended and inspected the scene. Anyone with information about the crash, or dashcam or CCTV footage of the utility prior to the incident, is urged to contact police on 1800 333 000. A link to the GoFundMe campaign can be found here.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Mum who worked as nurse for 36 years loses $460,000 in retirement fund collapse: 'The superannuation system is not safe'
A woman who worked as a nurse for 36 years has lost $460,000 in savings following the collapse of her super fund. Kathryn Shannon, from Perth, is now reconsidering her well-earned retirement after investing her life savings in the Simple Super Fund, via her self-managed super fund. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission in June sought a Federal Court order to appoint receivers to its parent company Australian Fiduciaries Limited. Now, 600 Australians are in limbo, having invested $160million in managed investment schemes offered by Australian Fiduciaries since February 2020, mainly through self-managed superannuation funds. Ms Shannon, who doesn't own her own home, had voluntarily topped up her super, and only took time out of work to give birth to her two children. 'I transferred all of my funds, totalling over $460,000 and representing nearly all my life savings as I don't own my own home,' she said. 'I don't know how this could have happened. I never imagined I would face any difficulty with anything as simple as superannuation is supposed to be. 'I feel ripped off and the superannuation system is not safe.' She said the collapse of her super fund was particularly bad for someone nearing retirement age, such as herself. 'I now have doubt and fear about what my future will look like,' she said. 'Due to my age, the likelihood of earning enough to retire now is not possible. 'I am overwhelmed that I may have lost all of my super funds. 'How could this happen and why did monitoring not pick this up earlier? 'There are so many unanswered questions.' Australian Fiduciaries had stopped distributing units in its schemes in September 2023. This was two months after Simple Super Fund had its Australian business number cancelled, ending its status as a tax office-regulated self-managed superannuation fund. ASIC is investigating Australian Fiduciaries for inadequately managing conflicts of interest and for deceptively convincing investors to park their money with its schemes. Terry van der Velde and Matthew Hudson from SV Partners were last month appointed as voluntary administrators. Ms Shannon filed a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority in July and fears she will be left penniless without federal government intervention. 'I fear that without the intervention of the federal government, neither I nor any of the other 600 or so 'retail investors' who entrusted their superannuation to AFL will get their money,' she said. Her uncertainty is occurring as 6,000 Australians grapple with losing their super-managed super funds that had been invested in the collapsed First Guardian Master Fund.
