Commissioner of Police v Binion

Case [1983] AFPDT 1


I N THE FEDERAL POLICE

) -

1

DISCIPLINARY

TRIBUNAL

)

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

I

*

4

a g a i n s t

LLOYD MICHAEL

B I N I O N

D E C I S I O N

.

TR I B UNAL

Mr

J . R . B .

N o r r i s

Q . C .

DATE

:

3.8

J u n e

1 9 8 3

THE TRIBUNAL DECIDES THAT:

1 .

L l o y d

M i c h a e l

B i n i o n

i s n o t

g u i l t y o f

t h e b r e a c h

d i s c i p l i n e a l l e g e d i n t h e n o t i c e d a t e d 3 0 M a r c h

1

s i g n e d b y

t h e

C o m m i s s i o n e r

o f

P o l i c e

R e g u l a t i o n

19A o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

F e d e

( D i s c i p l i n e )

R e g u l a t i o n s ,

a n d

w h i c h

b

n u m b e r

AFP:

4 8 1 8 2 8 3 .

2 .

L l o y d M i c h a e l

b i n i o n

i s g u i l t y o f

t h e b

d i s c i p l i n e a l l e g e d

i n t h e n o t i c e d a t e d

s i g n e d b y

t h e

C o m m i s s i o n e r

o f

P o l i c e

p u r s u a n t

t o

R e g u l a t i o n

19A

o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n F e d e r a l P o l i c e

( D i s c i p l i n e )

R e g u l a t i o n s ,

a n d

w h i c h

b e a r s

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

; k g

n u m b e r

AFP:

4 9 1 8 2 8 3 .

3 .

L l o y d

H i c h a e l

B i n i o n

i s n o t

g u i l t y o f

t h e b r e a c h

o f

d i s c i p l i n e a l l e g e d

i n t h e n o t i c e d a t e d

3 0 M a r c h

1 9 8 3

s i g n e d

by

t h e

C o m m i s s i o n e r

o f

P o l i c e p u r s u a n t

t o

R e g u l a t i o n

19A o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n F e d e r a l P o l i c e

( D i s c i p l i n e )

R e g u l a t i o n s ,

a n d w h i c h

b e

n u m b e r

AFP:

5 0 1 8 2 8 3 .

4 .

T h e

p r o c e e d i n g s b e

r e m i t t e d

t o t h e Com

f o r t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f

a

p e n a l t y o n L l o

i n r e s p e c t o f

t h e b r e a c h o f

d i s c i p l i n e

2 . a b o v e .

-___-___- - - - - -___-_- - - - -

J . R . B .

NORRIS

Q . C .

Y e m b e r

I N THE FEDERAL POLICE )

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

)

No.

6 o f 1 9 8 3

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

a g a i n s t

LLOYD

MICHAEL

B I N I O N

I N THE

MATTER

o f

t h e C o m p l a i n t s

( A u s t r a l i a n F e d e r a l P o l i c e )

A c t

1 9 8 1

C

REASONS FOR DECISION

MR J . R . B .

NORRIS

Q . C .

2 8

J u n e

1 9 8 3

C o n s t a b l e

B i n i o n

f a c e s a l l e g a t i o n o f

d i s c i p l i n a r y

o f f e n c e s

u n d e r

R e g u l a t i o n

1 8 ( l ) ( d ) o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

F e d e r a l

P o l i c e

( D i s c i p l i n e )

R e g u l a t i o n s ,

t h e

f i r s t o f

w h i c h

i s

a s s a u l t i n g

K e n n e t h

G e o r g e

S p e n c e r ,

t h e

s e c o n d

h a r r a s s i n g

K e n n e t h

G e o r g e

S p e n c e r ,

t h e

t h i r d h a r a s s i n g

H e r m a n

c a n

d e r

L a a n .

T h e

o n u s

i s t h e c i v i l o n u s

s u b j e c t t o my

t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t

t h e

0

g r a v i t y a n d n a t u r e o f

t h e

c h a r g e s .

A s t o t h e f i r s t a l l e g a t i o n o f

a s s a u l t ,

I

am

n o t s a t i s f i e d

o n

t h e e v i d e n c e

t h a t

a n a s s a u l t i n l a w w a s

c o m m i t t e d .

Mr

S p e n c e r ,

w h o s e

e v i d e n c e

I

a c c e p t ,

w a s

s u f f i c i e n t l y f r a n k

t o c o n c e d e

t h a t

i t

m i g h t

h a v e

b e e n

a n

a c c i d e n t

a n d

t h a t

t h e

c o n s t a b l e m i g h t

w e l l n o t

h a v e

r e a l i s e d t h a t t h e l i c e n c e h a d

s t r u c k h i m

i n t h e f a c e .

I t may

b e

t h a t C o n s t a b l e B i n i o n w a s

o v e r - a r r o g a n t ,

b u t

I

am

n o t

s a t i s f i e d

t h a t h e i n t e n d e d

t o s t r i k e Mr

S p e n c e r o r t h a t

h e w a s

s o i n d i f f e r e n t

t o w h a t

h a p p e n e d

a s t o b e u n c a r i n g .

I

d o n o t

f i n d

t h i s a l l e g a t i o n

p r o v e d .

. . . / 2 .

T h e

a l l e g a t i o n o f

h a r a s s m e n t

i s a

d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r .

I

h a v e z l r e a d y s t a t e d t h a t I

a c c e p t Mr

S p e n c e r a s a w i t n e s s who

w a s

t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h .

I n d e e d ,

M r S p e n c e r

i n g i v i n g h i s a c c o u n t

o f

e v e n t s

i n t h e w i t n e s s b o x

a p p e a r e d

s t i l l t o b e a n g r y a n d

r e s e n t f u l a t h a v i n g b e e n

t r e a t e d i n t h e m a n n e r

h e d e s c r i b e d

f o r

n o

r e a s o n

t h a t

h e

c o u l d

c o m p r e h e n d .

C l e a r l y

C o n s t a b l e

B i n i o n

w a s

o v e r - a u t h o r i t a t i v e

a n d

b e h a v e d

i n a m a n n e r

u n s u i t e d

t o

a n

o f f i c e r

o f

t h e f o r c e .

T h e

n e x t

q u e s t i o n

i s :

d i d

t h i s

c o n d u c t

c o n t r a v e n e

R e g u l a t i o n

1 8 ( l ) ( d ) ?

A s

I

m e n t i o n e d

e a r l i e r ,

t h e s e c t i o n h a s

b e e n

i n t e r p r e t e d

b y

a n

e a r l i e r T r i b u n a l

( w h i c h

t h i s T r i b u n a l

r e p l a c e d )

a n d

t h e i r P r e s i d e n t

o f

t h a t T r i b u n a l f o u n d

t h a t

t h e w o r d s

" d i s g r a c e f u l "

a n d

" i m p r o p e r "

s h o u l d

b e

c o n s t r u e d

a s

h a v i n g

s o m e t h i n g

i n common.

I n t h i s l a t t e r r e g a r d i t s e e m s

t o m e t h a t o n e s h o u l d

c o n s i d e r

t h e m

c o l l e c t i v e l y

t o

i m p o r t

s o m e t h i n g

m o r e

t h a n

s i m p l y

" i n a p p r o p r i a t e

i n a

p o l i c e

o f f i c e r 1 ' b u t

s o m e t h i n g

s u c h a s t h a t

w h i c h may

b r i n g d i s r e p u t e t o t h e f o r c e o f

w h i c h

h e

i s a m e m b e r ,

L

c o n n o t a t i n g

d i s h o n o u r a b l e ,

i n f l i c t i n g d i s g r a c e

o r

s h a m e f u l .

i n b r e a c h o f

I n my

o p i n i o n h i s c o n d u c t o n

t h a t d a y w a s

R e g u l a t i o n

1 8 ( l ) ( d ) .

He

s e e m e d

t o b e

a c t i n g a s M r v a n

d e r L a a n

d e s c r i b e d

i t , a s a man

d r u n k w i t h a u t h o r i t y .

T h e r e w a s

n o t h i n g

a p p a r e n t

t o me

t o j u s t i f y h i s l o s i n g h i s t e m p e r

a n d a c t i n g i n t h e

m a n n e r

t h a t M r S p e n c e r h a s

d e s c r i b e d .

I

f i n d t h i s a l l e g a t i o n

t o

h a v e

b e e n made

o u t .

I

t u r n

t o

t h e a l l e g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g M r v a n

d e r L a a n .

He

m a d e

n o

c o m p l a i n t

o f

C o n s t a b l e

B i n i o n ' s

c o n d u c t .

I n d e e d

i n

h i s o p i n i o n

s u c h

a l t e r c a t i o n a s

t o o k p l a c e

b e t w e e n

h e

a n d

C o n s t a b l e

B i n i o n

w a s

t r i f l i n g a n d

b e s t

f o r g o t t e n .

H i s v i e w

w a s

t h a t

i t i s c h i l d i s h t o p u r s u e

a

c o m p l a i n t

a g a i n s t C o n s t a b l e B i n i o n .

I

m e n t i o n

t h a t i n p a s s i n g ,

n o t

b e c a u s e

i t i n f l u e n c e s m e b u t

b e c a u s e

h e ,

i f a n y o n e ,

w a s

t h e p e r s o n who

o u g h t

o t h a v e b e e n

a g r r i e v e d .

I

am

n o t

s u r e w h e t h e r

t h i s was

h a r a s s m e n t w i t h i n t h e

d i c t i o n a r y m e a n i n g

o f

t h a t w o r d ,

b u t

I

am

q u i t e u n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e

t h a t

i t c o n t r a v e n e d

R e g u l a t i o n

1 8 ( l ) ( d )

i n t h e m a n n e r

e a r l i e r

d e f i n e d .

J . R . B .

NORRIS

Q . C .

-

Member

Details
AGLC
Commissioner of Police v Binion [1983] AFPDT 1
Case
[1983] AFPDT 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner of Police v Binion involved a dispute between the Commissioner of Police and the applicant, Binion, regarding the legality of a police stop and search. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Binion sought to have evidence obtained from the search suppressed, arguing that it was obtained in breach of his rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to stop and search Binion, and whether the search was conducted lawfully. The court needed to consider the applicable legal principles governing police stops and searches, including the requirements for reasonable suspicion and the proportionality of the search. Binion argued that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and that the search was therefore unlawful.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Binion based on the circumstances known to them at the time. The court noted that the officer was aware of a recent armed robbery in the area and Binion's behaviour, including his sudden departure when approached by the police, provided reasonable grounds for suspicion. The court further found that the search was conducted lawfully, as it was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. The evidence obtained during the search was therefore admissible.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Binion's application to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. The orders of the court were that the evidence obtained from the search of Binion would be admitted in any proceedings against him.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.