Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

One bad apple found in ACT Policing

By johnboy - 14 October 2011 30

pills

The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has released a report from last year on a very dodgy police constable.

This investigation primarily concerns suggestions that an ACT Policing constable, an appointee of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), had improperly disposed of illicit drugs (tablets which he had received in the course of his duties in October 2007), apparently by flushing them down a police station toilet. The information raised the possibility that the constable had not disposed of the tablets, but had kept them for his own use, or to sell or give them to another person.

Giving evidence to a hearing convened by the Integrity Commissioner, the constable admitted to disposing of the tablets in an unapproved way. The investigation established that no other AFP employee witnessed the claimed disposal of the drugs, but discovered no evidence that the constable had kept the tablets.

The constable made other admissions, relating to retaining property improperly, misusing police vehicles and accepting gratuities from licensed premises.

The AFP dismissed the constable, taking into account evidence which the Integrity Commissioner provided to the AFP Commissioner during the course of this investigation.

The Canberra Times reports on this case and another policeman having a relationship with a brothel owner.

[Photo by epSos.de CC BY]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
One bad apple found in ACT Policing
welkin31 7:42 am 15 Oct 11

I am a tad puzzled how these “blue-light taxi” offenses could have been committed – I understood police work in pairs when in police-car. Surely police-car kms are logged and signed off on so there is another issue. I would be suspicious that a colleague(s) turned a blind eye. In this day and age with low cost and accurate GPS location monitoring – surely the location of all police-cars is knowable in realtime. I think the Commissioner’s finding – “….ruled out corrupt conduct.” – sounds like a bad joke.

devils_advocate 3:13 pm 14 Oct 11

p1 said :

Tooks said :

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Was he convicted of a crime? Why do you need his name?

I’d be pretty interested if it was someone I knew…

One of the reasons why the name should be released is, so his previous cases/investigations/arrests can be examined and any allegations of impropriety reassessed in light of these findings.

earthrepair 12:58 pm 14 Oct 11

http://www.aclei.gov.au/www/aclei/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(8AB0BDE05570AAD0EF9C283AA8F533E3)~ACLEI+Investigation+Report+01-2011.pdf/$file/ACLEI+Investigation+Report+01-2011.pdf

The constable made other admissions, namely that he had:
(a) retained for himself some property (of minor value) that he had found
while on duty, despite that he knew of his obligation to register and
deposit the property;

When the constable took for himself the property he had found, he profited by
keeping it. The property should have been properly processed so it could
have been returned to its rightful owner (if one could be identified) or handled
in accordance with AFP requirements. The unlawful retention of property by
the constable may give rise to a criminal offence

For the purposes of investigating this corruption issue(*), I decided that it would
be beneficial to hold hearings, in private, under the LEIC Act
——————————————————————————————————————————————–

(*) free drinks, blue light taxi, druggie girlfriend running a brothel etc..No wonder they wanted it in camera..

johnboy 12:29 pm 14 Oct 11

Assuming he actually disposed of the drugs and didn’t give them to his known to be drug using girlfriend.

Classified 12:29 pm 14 Oct 11

buzz819 said :

Obviously they are breaches of the Public Service code of conduct and against the AFP’s operating procedures, if they had of found something criminal don’t you think he would have been charged criminally?

Not necessarily. There are many forms of action that can be taken, and I suspect that cops charging other cops is probably reserved for bigger ticket items. Although this person clearly did some things wrong, the individual things themselves didn’t seem to me to be big ticket items. One would think that when dealing with this type of issue the people running the show would have, and use, some discretion. I guess what I was interested in was whether these things WERE actually criminal offences.

john87_no1 12:21 pm 14 Oct 11

buzz819 said :

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Why do you need a name? It doesn’t change the outcome, how many media releases are there around that don’t release people’s names?

Your right, I dont *need* to know the officers name. But what is the incentive for other police not to be corrupt if they dont get publicly named if/when caught.

He used tax payers time, money and property to dispose of illegal substances (which he did not correctly record) after taking an oath to uphold and enforce the law.

The AFP are not above the law and officers should be held accountable in a transparent and equal manner to the rest of us.

No one had a problem releasing e.g. Mully Williams name all over the papers and news and he helped kill 3 people. *stir stir*

Henry82 12:16 pm 14 Oct 11

I don’t think he will last too long in the force.

>The constable admitted to using police vehicles to provide ”blue light taxi” lifts for friends, retaining property found while on duty and accepting free drinks from licensed premises.

Probably the last straw right there.

buzz819 12:10 pm 14 Oct 11

johnboy said :

openness, transparency, highly over rated when fighting corruption…?

The said “The Commissioner said the constable’s actions involved breaches of discipline but ruled out corrupt conduct.”

So that means they have to name every person who commits “breaches of discipline?”

I’m all for transparency and openness for the betterment of the community etc. This hearing has found that he breached guidelines in relation operating procedures and department policies but did not conduct himself in corrupt behavior.

If he had of broken the law his name would have been printed, probably from the plane that was towing the sign around yesterday.

Classified said :

Tooks said :

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Was he convicted of a crime? Why do you need his name?

No to be facetious, but doesn’t “retaining property improperly, misusing police vehicles and accepting gratuities from licensed premises” consitute crime? Or is it that these things are in contravention of whichever code of conduct Police are required to adhere to. If these things ARE actually crimes (I’m guessing they aren’t), why wouldn’t the person involved be charged?

Obviously they are breaches of the Public Service code of conduct and against the AFP’s operating procedures, if they had of found something criminal don’t you think he would have been charged criminally?

eyeLikeCarrots 12:03 pm 14 Oct 11

johnboy said :

openness, transparency, highly over rated when fighting corruption…?

The ACT commission must be working with the Victorian Police Integrity Commision.

p1 12:01 pm 14 Oct 11

Tooks said :

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Was he convicted of a crime? Why do you need his name?

I’d be pretty interested if it was someone I knew…

Classified 11:57 am 14 Oct 11

Tooks said :

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Was he convicted of a crime? Why do you need his name?

No to be facetious, but doesn’t “retaining property improperly, misusing police vehicles and accepting gratuities from licensed premises” consitute crime? Or is it that these things are in contravention of whichever code of conduct Police are required to adhere to. If these things ARE actually crimes (I’m guessing they aren’t), why wouldn’t the person involved be charged?

johnboy 11:34 am 14 Oct 11

openness, transparency, highly over rated when fighting corruption…?

Tooks 11:29 am 14 Oct 11

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Was he convicted of a crime? Why do you need his name?

buzz819 11:22 am 14 Oct 11

john87_no1 said :

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Why do you need a name? It doesn’t change the outcome, how many media releases are there around that don’t release people’s names?

john87_no1 11:03 am 14 Oct 11

Why dont they release his name? I assume they would if a member of the public was caught doing something similar.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site