Commissioner of Police v Carey

[1989] AFPDT 1

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE	)
) No. 5 of 1987
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL	1

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Against
KEVIN CAREY

IN THE MATTER of the Comwlaints (Australian

~ederal ~olicej Act 1981.

DECISION

TRIBUNAL :  Mr. Justice Jenkinson, Deputy President

DATE : 20 February, 1989

The Tribunal orders that the costs of these preceedings before it incurred by Senior Constable Kevin Carey be paid by the Commonwealth.

........ ........ ........ ....

Deputy President

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE	)
) No. 5 of 1987
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL	)

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Against

KEVIN CAREY

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Against
MICHAEL KEITH DUTHIE

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981.

20 February, 1989 MR. JUSTICE JENKINSON -
Deputy President

REASONS FOR DECISION

Each of Senior Constable Kevin Carey and Senior Tribunal of the disciplinary offence of improper conduct in his	Constable Michael Keith Duthie was found not guilty by this
official capacity as a member of the Australian Federal Police. The circumstances are disclosed in the reasons for the Tribunal's decisions in respect of those charges, which were heard together. Each of the members seeks, but the Commissioner opposes, an order that the Commonwealth pay the costs of the proceedings before the Tribunal incurred by the member. The power to make such an order is conferred on the Tribunal by Regulation 7 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Regulations. The power, which is conditioned upon the Tribunal's finding the member of the Australian Federal Police not guilty of the breach of discipline charged in proceedings under s.67 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, is discretionary.
Mr. Lorkins opposed the award of costs for the reason that each member had given in answer to questioning by his superiors a different account of the events and circumstances out

L/

of which the charge arose to the account he gave in evidence before the Tribunal. It was not submitted that there had been deliberate untruthfulness by either member, but rather that each had failed when first questioned by his superiors to give a sufficiently accurate and comprehensive account of the circumstances under investigation.

Not all of what occurred during the investigation was

given in evidence before the Tribunal, no doubt because not all

Ld	was relevant to the particular charges brought before the Tribunal. What was disclosed did not in my opinion establish that
order for payment of his costs. In each case it will be ordered either member had so conducted himself as to merit denial of an

that the costs of the proceedings before it incurred by the member
charged be paid by the Commonwealth.

I certify that this and the 2 preceeding pages are a true copy of the Decision and Reasons for Decision herein of Mr. Justice Jenkinson Deputy President.

A-

Associate

Dated: 20 February, 1989