Commissioner of Police v Cooper

jq~s~] A~Pvr a

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE )

)	No . 5 of 1984

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

INSPECTOR RAY DONALD COOPER

F I N D I N G S

•

MR K .P . DUGGAN Q .C ., MEMBER

7JANUARY 1985

ADELAIDE, S .A.

THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT :-

1 .Inspector Ray Donald Cooper is not guilty of the breach of discipline alleged in Charge No . AFP :32/8384, namely :-

•

That he, being a member of the Australian Federal Police, as a crown witness, he did make a decision not to call the

was guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph

18(1)(f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations

namely that at Melbourne in t'he State of Victoria he did act

in a manner that was prejudicial to the good order and

discipline of the Australian Federal Police in that, in relation

to Committal Proceedings at Melbourne Magistrate ' s Court which

were held on 6 December 1982 against Larry James SPONG and

Robert NURI he_exceeded his authority as the Officer in Charge

of the Drug Unit in that, having been advised by the Deputy

said witness, without consulting either Chief Superintendent

MORLEY the then Crime Co-ordinator or Chief Superintendent

MORRISON the then Officer in Charge, Southern Region.

2 .Inspector Ray Donald Cooper is not guilty of the breach of discipline alleged in Charge No . AFP :33/8384 namely :-

That, he being a member of the Australian Federal Police,

was guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph

18(1)(c) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline)

Regulations, namely that at Melbourne in the State of

Victoria he was negligent in the discharge of his duties in

that, in relation to Committal Proceedings at Melbourne

Magistrates Court which were held on 6 December 1982 against

•	Larry James SPONG and Robert NURI he did make a decision not to call an offender to wit Cheryl DAVIES as a crown witness contrary to the advice of the Deputy Crown Solicitor.

AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT :-

1 .The Commonwealth of Australia pay to. Inspector Ray Donald Cooper the costs of these proceedings incurred by him.

•

K .P . Duggan Q .C.

MEMBER

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE )

No . 5 of 1984

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

INSPECTOR RAY DONALD COOPER

MR K .P . DUGGAN Q .C ., MEMBER

JANUARY 1985

ADELAIDE, S .A .

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

These proceedings came on for hearing before me in Melbourne

on 3 October 1984 .

On that day Counsel for the Commissioner led

oral evidence from Mr James Edward Fuller and tendered some

documentary evidence .

The hearing was then adjourned to the next day.

On 4 October 1984 Counsel for the Commissioner announced

•

that he did not propose to lead any further evidence and further

stated "there is no procedure as such for withdrawing charges and

we understand the consequences for not leading further evidence".

In these circumstances, having regard to the state of the

evidence at the time the only finding I could make was to dismiss

the charges and make an order for costs in favour of Inspector Cooper.

Accordingly, I made those orders orally on 4 October 1984.

K .P . Duggan Q .C.

MEMBER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Commissioner of Police v Cooper, the appellant was convicted for assaulting a police officer during an arrest. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the primary judge's decision to admit certain evidence was correct and whether this led to the appellant's conviction being upheld. The appellant argued that the evidence in question was improperly admitted, as it was prejudicial and did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the law. Furthermore, he claimed that the evidence was not relevant to the circumstances of the assault and could have influenced the jury's decision unduly.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of evidence law, specifically the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented met the legal standards for relevance and probative value, and whether its prejudicial nature outweighed these factors. The court also needed to assess if the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of evidence law in admitting the contested evidence. Additionally, the court examined whether the admission of this evidence was a significant factor in the conviction and if it could have potentially affected the outcome of the trial.

The court held that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence, finding it was relevant and had probative value in establishing the context of the assault. The court noted that the evidence was necessary to understand the sequence of events and the appellant's state of mind during the incident. The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no error in the primary judge's decision to admit the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence did not unfairly prejudice the appellant and was essential for the jury to make an informed decision. The conviction was therefore upheld, and the appeal was unsuccessful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established