Commissioner of Police v Dawson

[1988] AFPDT 3

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE	) ) No. 1 of 1988
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL	1

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Against
SERGEANT PETER DAWSON

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints (Australian

~edkral Police) Act 1981.

DECISION

TRIBUNAL :  Mr. Justice Jenkinson, Deputy President

DATE : 2 September, 1988

1.    The Tribunal finds that Sergeant Peter Dawson is guilty of each of the following disciplinary offences specified in the notifications numbered AFP: 19/8788, AFP: 20/8788, AFP: 21/8788, AFP: 22/8788, AFP 23/8788 and AFP: 24/8788, namely:-

That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence AFP:19/8788
specified in paragraph 18(l) (d) of the
Australian Federal Police (Discipline)
Regulations, namelyimproper conduct otherwise
than in his official capacity, in that on
divers occasions between the 1st day of May

Victoria, he did abuse his position as a	Supervisory Sergeant of Ann Marie PARKIN, a
member of, the Australian Federal Police under his supervision, in that he made an intentional physical contact with the said Ann Marie PARKIN knowing it to be against her will, and that further he did make improper suggestions to her, whereby he acted in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal Police.
That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence ~FP:21/8788 specified in paragraph 18(l)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely improper conduct in his official capacity, in that on or about the 4th day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, he did attempt to intimidate by an implied threat, Steve PROUSIALKAS and Stephen Michael WALLEY, members of the Australian Federal Police under his supervision, in that he did say to the said Steve PROUSIALKAS and Stephen Michael WALLEY, words to the effect "right, I want both of you to tell me what you know about a sexual harassment charge that one of the girls is bringing against me. It'll be no more nice Peter".
That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence AFP:22/8788 specified in paragraph 18(l)(f) of the Australian Federal Police ('Discipline) Regulations, namely that he did act in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal Police, in that on or about the 30th day of May 1987, at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, he did say to Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police, words to the effect that Detective Senior Sergeant Ingeborg BAYER, a member of the Australian Federal Police and a superior Non Commissioned Officer of the said Ann Marie PARKIN, was a
whore and that she had slept her way to the top, such words that might have had the effect
of undermining the authority of senior Australian Federal Police members who perform duty at the Southern Region Headquarters.
That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence AFP:23/8788 specified in paragraph 18 (l) ( f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely that he did act in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal Police, in that on or about the 30th day of May 1987, at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, he did say to Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police, words to the effect that Inspector Graham GARTSIDE,

1987 and the 23rd day of July 1987 at
Melbourne in the State of Victoria, he did
harass Ann Marie PARKIN a member of the
Australian Federal Police, in that he did make
physical contact with the said Ann Marie
PARKIN against her express wishes and that
further he did make improper suggestions to

her.

That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence AFP:20/8788
specified in paragraph 18(l) (£1 of the
Australian Federal Police (Discipline)
Regulations, in that on divers occasions
between the 1st day of May 1987 and the 23rd
day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of

a member,of the Australian Federal Police and a superior Commissioned Officer of the said Ann Marie PARKIN, had brown-nosed his way to the top, such words that might have had the effect of undermining the authority of senior Australian Federal Police members who perform duty at the Southern Region Headquarters.

That he was guilty of a disciplinary offence AFP:24/8788
specified in paragraph 18(l) (a) of the
Australian Federal Police (Discipline)
Regulations, by contravening a provision of
Division 1 of those Regulations, namely
Regulation 7, in that on or about the 11th day
of August 1987 at Melbourne in the State of
Victoria, during a series of questions put to
him by Detective Inspector Harold Charles
JACOTINE, a member of the Australian Federal
Police, he the said Peter DAWSON did deny that
he had discussed with Ann Marie PARKIN, a
member of the Australian Federal Police, an
official assessment he had completed in
respect to Stephen Michael WALLEY, a member of
the Australian Federal Police, thereby he did
knowingly make in the course of his duty an
oral statement that was misleading.

The Tribunal imposes on Sergeant Peter Dawson in respect of the said disciplinary offences the following penalties respectively, namely:-

(a)	in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 19/8788 that he pay a fine of $350;
(b)	in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 20/8788 that he be reduced to the rank of Constable of the grade known as First Constable;

(C) in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 21/8788 that he pay a fine of $100;

(d)	in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 22/8788 that he pay a fine of $350;
(e)	in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 23/8788 that he pay a fine of $350;
(f)	in respect of the disciplinary offence specified in the notification AFP: 24/8788 that he pay a fine of $200.

puty President

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE	)
) No. 1 of 1988
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL	)

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Against
SERGEANT PETER DAWSON

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

2 September, 1988	MR. JUSTICE JENKINSON -
Deputy President

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Tribunal has for decision six proceedings for disciplinary offences of which the member charged has admitted his guilt, and which were heard together.

All six offences were committed during a period which

commenced on 1 May 1987 and concluded on 11 August 1987. The

member charged, Detective Sergeant Peter Dawson, had during that	period been guilty, in his dealings with another member who was
under his supervision, of abusing that supervisory position and guilty also of improper conduct towards that other member otherwise than in his official capacity. Those breaches of discipline were the subjects of the following statements of the nature and particulars of two disciplinary offences, which are identified as 19/8788 and 20/8788:

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(l)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely improper conduct otherwise than in your official capacity, in that on divers occasions between the 1st day of May 1987 and the 23rd day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, you did harass Ann Marie PARKIN a member of the Australian Federal Police, in that you did make physical contact with the said Ann Marie PARKIN against her express wishes and that further you did make improper

suggestions to her. "

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(1)(f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, in that on divers occasions between the 1st day of May 1987 and the 23rd day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of victoria, you did abuse your position as a Supervisory Sergeant of Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police under your supervision, in that you made an intentional physical contact with the said Ann Marie PARKIN knowing it to be against her will, and that further you did make improper suggestions to her, whereby you acted in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal

Police. "

Sergeant Dawson was born in England on 30 July 1940. As three years in the Royal Marines. After his discharge at the age	a youth he was employed in English coal mines. He then served for
of 21 he worked in factories in England and served in merchant ships. In 1968 he came to Australia, where he worked as a diamond driller and then as a security guard until he was appointed a member of the Commonwealth Police Force in January 1974. On 5 November 1984 he attained the rank of sergeant in the Australian Federal Police, to which he had been appointed on its
establishment. ,He had served for two years at the Australian embassy in Warsaw in 1978 and 1979. From 1980 until September 1985 he was serving in the Northern Territory. Then he came to Melbourne and served in the regional intelligence unit from January 1986 until April 1987, when he was transferred to general duties in uniform. The transfer was made after Sergeant Dawsonrs superior, Inspector Gartside, had made a report, which Sergeant Dawson read, that he lacked the experience required for intelligence work other than the routine work he had been carrying

Ld	out in the unit.
Sergeant Dawson married in 1970. During the period when the disciplinary offences were committed he was living with his wife and the two adolescent children of the marriage.
Constable Ann Marie Parkin was 23 years old when the disciplinary offences were committed. She was appointed a member of the Australian Federal Police on 30 June 1986. In the course of her training she worked during December 1986 in the regional intelligence unit and there met Sergeant Dawson, who then seemed to her, as she later said, "a genuine and nice fellow". She and
about the same time in April 1987. In the "shift" under Sergeant Sergeant Dawson commenced duty in the General Uniform Section at
Dawson's supervision were four male and two female members. Within a fortnight after Constable Parkin had commenced duty in that shift Sergeant Dawson had declared his love for her while they were on duty and had taken hold of her hand. She gave him no encouragement either then or on later occasions. During the succeeding weeks he pressed her, during conversations which he
initiated while they were on duty, to look with favour on his amorous advances. He asked her to have sexual intercourse with him, and he kissed her without her consent and questioned her about her sexual experience. Some questions, which nothing in her conversation or demeanour had invited, were grossly offensive. He said : "Have you ever been kissed on the vagina?" Later he said : "What colour are your pubic hairs?" On one occasion she threatened to report him. He said : "What are you going to say, it's my word against yours. Who are they going to believe? I'm a
L	Sergeant. You're a Constable. You've got no evidence, it's your word against mine". These observations matched Constable Parkin's own reflections on her position. She was greatly distressed by Sergeant Dawsonfs conduct, but she was very anxious not to prejudice her career in the Australian Federal Police, and she feared that complaint by her about that conduct might have such a prejudicial effect. After Sergeant Dawson had made the observations I have just quoted she was in tears in his presence. He pestered her to permit him to come to her home and on one occasion he did call on her there with her consent. He telephoned
i,	her at her home on several occasions.
On an occasion when Sergeant Dawson and Constable Parkin were in a motor car while on duty he made comments to her about two other members of the Australian Federal Police in the course of a conversation in which Sergeant Dawson was voicing his disappointment with his own situation. Those comments were the subjects of two of the proceedings for disciplinary offences, identified as 22/8788 and 23/8788, charged in these terms:

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a discilinary offence specified in paragraph 18(l)(f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely that you did act in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal Police, in that on or about the 30th day of May 1987, at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, you did say to Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police, words to the effect that Detective Senior Sergeant Ingeborg BAYER, a member of the Australian Federal Police and a superior Non Commissioned Officer of the said Ann Marie PARKIN, was a whore and that she had slept her way to the top, such words that might have had the effect of undermining the authority of senior Australian Federal Police members who perform duty at the Southern Region Headquarters.''

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(l)(f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely that you did act in a manner that is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian Federal Police, in that on or about the 30th day of May 1987, at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, you did say to Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police, words to the effect that Inspector Graham GARTSIDE, a member of the Australian Federal Police and a superior Commissioned Officer of the said Ann Marie PARKIN, had brown-nosed his way to the top, such words that might have had the effect of undermining the authority of senior Australian Federal Police members who perform duty at the Southern Region Headquarters."

On the same occasion Sergeant Dawson told Constable Parkin that he had just made a written assessment of First Constable Stephen Walley, one of the members of the shift. He indicated to her that, in his words, "I've put it in according to how I've seen it", and that First Constable alley had "good points and . .. some bad points". On 11 August 1987 Sergeant Dawson was required by an investigating officer, within the

meaning of that expression in General Order 6, to answer questions in relation to allegations by Constable Parkin, pursuant to the provisions of section 20 of that Order. In the course of prolonged questioning of Sergeant Dawson that day while he was subject to that requirement he denied having discussed with Constable Parkin his assessment of First Constable Walley. That denial was the subject of a charge, identified as 24/8788, of a disciplinary offence specified thus:

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(l)(a) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, by contravening a provision of Division 1 of those Regulations, namely Regulation 7, in that on or about the 11th day of August 1987 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, during a series of questions put to you by Detective Inspector Harold Charles JACOTINE, a member of the Australian Federal Police, you the said Peter DAWSON did deny that you had discussed with Ann Marie PARKIN, a member of the Australian Federal Police, an official assessment you had completed in respect to Stephen Michael WALLEY, a member of the Australian Federal Police, thereby you did knowlingly make in the course of your duty an oral statement that was misleading. "

There remains one further disciplinary offence of which Sergeant Dawson admitted his guilt. The statement of the offence,

identified as 21/8788 is in these terms:

"That you, Peter DAWSON, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(l)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely improper conduct in your official capacity, in that on or about the 4th day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, you did attempt to intimidate by an implied threat, Steve PROUSIALKAS and Stephen Michael WALLEY,

members of the Australian Federal Police under your supervision, in that you did say to the said Steve PROUSIALKAS and Stephen Michael WALLEY, words to the effect "right, I want both of you to tell me what you know about a sexual harassment charge that one of the girls is bringing against me. It'll be no more nice Peter."

The two disciplinary offences to which reference has
been made last may be conveniently discussed first. The evidence

adduced on the hearing of the charges showed clearly that during

L	May and June 1987 Sergeant Dawsonfs infatuation with Constable Parkin had become the subject of speculation and discussion among the other members of the shift. By 4 July 1987 he had had wind of a complaint concerning his conduct to his superiors by a female member. His judgment and his nerve had been weakened during May and June by the emotional turmoil attending his unrequited passion for Constable Parkin. The attempt to force Prousialkas and Walley to give him information was improper conduct, involving as it did the implied threat that his authority would be exercised to their disadvantage if they refused to furnish him with information which
i,	neither of them was under any obligation as members to give him. But the attempt was not pressed, nor the threat repeated. And
of mind. The appropriate penalty for the offence is in my opinion Sergeant Dawson was at the time in a confused and agitated state
a fine of $100.
The requirement of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations that a member should not knowingly make in the course of his duty a statement, whether written or oral, that is false or misleading is of the greatest importance in the
maintenance of discipline. Morale cannot be built without trust
and there can be no trust without frankness in communication among ,
the members. On 11 August 1987 Sergeant Dawson was no doubt himself in a demoralised state of mind, because he was facing a large number of questions to which honest answers would disclose to his fellow members just how badly he had been behaving. That may explain, although it cannot excuse, his failure to admit that he had made statements to Constable Parkin, including the statements about Senior Constable Walley's assessment, which he
L	was ashamed of having made. The Tribunal considers that the appropriate penalty for the disciplinary offence specified as 24/8788 is a fine of $200.
The two disciplinary offences grounded upon Sergeant Dawsonrs advances to Constable Parkin are very serious. The offence of improper conduct, contrary to paragraph 18(l)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, is directed to conduct which occurred when Constable Parkin was not on duty and Serveant Dawson was not communicating with her in his official
L	capacity as her superior. The offence of acting in a manner prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Australian
regulations, is directed to conduct which occurred when Constable Federal Police, contrary to paragraph 18(l)(f) of those

Parkin was on duty and Sergeant Dawson was on duty and had the responsibility of supervising her performance of her duties. ~t was made clear during the course of the hearing that the expression "physical contact" in the statement of the former offence was not to be taken to designate contact between their bodies, but only the visit by Sergeant Dawson to Constable

Parkin's home. In the statement of the latter offence the same

expression was to be taken, it was agreed by counsel for the .
Commissioner and counsel for Sergeant Dawson, to comprehend the
kissing and touching to which I have referred.

The Tribunal accepts that there are circumstances properly to be weighed in Sergeant Dawson's favour in determing the appropriate penalties in respect of those two disciplinary offences. He had, it would appear, been promoted to the rank of

L	Sergeant when his experience had hardly fitted him for that rank. His performance in the regional intelligence unit had not satisfied his superiors and he knew that at the time when he took up uniform duty and assumed resonsibility for the supervision of Constable Parkin. The evidence is consistent with his having been mastered by a passion in which feelings of romantic love were involved, rather than his having pretented to love her in order to seduce her, and the Tribunal will therefore assume that his protestations of love were genuine. Neither his police record nor any other evidence hints of womanizing before 1987. There was persuasive evidence that Sergeant Dawson is capable, when not distracted by his own emotions, of maintaining good personal
both sexes in the course of duty. His general police record is relations with other members of the Australian Federal Police of
good, and not marred by any prior disciplinary offence.
The instances of improper conduct, of the kind comprehended by these two charges, which occurred when Constable Parkin was not on duty and Sergeant Dawson was not acting in his official capacity are relatively few in number and relatively less
serious than the other instances. Accordingly it is apparent that the penalty in respect of the disciplinary offence to which the former instances are referable could not be more severe than the penalty in respect of the other offence, and may well be less severe. I therefore consider first the disciplinary offence of acting in a manner prejudicial to good order and discipline in Sergeant Dawsonrs dealings with Constable Parkin while they were both on duty.
V	The conduct of Sergeant Dawson was prejudicial to good order and discipline in several respects. It was conduct which, it must have been obvious to a man of Sergeant Dawson's experience, was calculated to destroy the proper relationship during the hours of duty between a young inexperienced constable and her superivsing sergeant. There was involved a gross abuse of SergeantDawsonfs supervisory position : his advances were pressed when he and Constable Parkin were on duty and the advantages which his supervisory position afforded him were utilised in support of his suit for her sexual favours. Being unable or unwilling to
i,	deny himself the expression of his feelings for her while they were on duty together, he failed to take the obvious course of
close working association. These were errors of judgment, or requesting his superiors to arrange that he and she be not in any
failures of will, in the performance of his duty so gross as to compel the conclusion that Sergeant Dawson is not fit to exercise any but the lowest supervisory functions as a member of the Australian Federal Police.
The harmful effects of Sergeant Dawsonfs conduct on the discipline of those members of the Australian Federal Police who have become aware of that conduct should be considered. There . cannot fail to have been aroused in the minds of young, junior members an apprehension that they may be prey to oppression and harrassment by superiors, when they hear of such outrageous conduct on duty by a sergeant. Sensitivities and suspicions are likely to impair the relationships of members, at least for a time, in consequence of the disclosure of Sergeant Dawsonrs misconduct. It is a legitimate objective of the disciplinary
I,	process to restore and maintain confidence in the fairness and sound administration of the supervisory system of the Australian Federal Police, by matching the gravity of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline with an appropriately grave penalty. The Commissioner's view that the appropriate penalty in this case is dismissal has much force. But the Tribunal has had regard to persuasive evidence of the fine qualities which Sergeant Dawson had displayed before this deplorable episode in his life and the equally persuasive evidence of his commendable performance of duty since that time. In all the circumstances the Tribunal concludes
L/	that the appropriate penalty respect of the disciplinary offence identified as 20/8788 is that Sergeant Dawson be reduced in rank
to the rank of Constable of the grade known as First Constable.
The misconduct of Sergeant Dawson which constituted the disciplinary offence identified as 19/8788 was inextricably associated with the misconduct which constituted the disciplinary offence identified as 20/8788. It was misconduct inherently less grave, because not committed in Sergeant Dawkinrs official capacity. Those circumstances in which the impropriety of the
conduct chiefly consisted have been taken into account in determining the penalty for the other disciplinary offence. ~t is therefore appropriate, in my opinion, that the penalty in respect of this disciplinary offence, 19/8788, be a fine of $350.
The disciplinary offences against paragraph 18(l)(f) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations constituted by the observations of Sergeant Dawson about Inspector Gartside and Sergeant Bayer are in one aspect similar to the offences
t	against Constable Parkin : they demonstrate his unfitness for the performance of supervisory functions. Any organization, and particularly an organization under discipline, is entitled to expect that senior members will not make comments derogatory to other senior members in the presence of neophytes who will be expected to give their trust and respect to persons of the ranks which Inspector Gartside and Sergeant Bayer held. These were in my opinion serious breaches of discipline. If Sergeant Dawson could not restrain himself from seeking Constable Parkin's sexual favours, he should have been able to restrain himself from
Q	gratuitous abuse of his colleagues to a young Constable who was in no position to assess the justice of his crudely expressed judgments. In respect of each of those two disciplinary offences (22/8788 and 23/8788) he will be fined $350.

I certify that this and the eleven (11) preceding pages are a true copy of the Decision and Reasons for Decision herein of Mr. Justice Jenkinson Deputy President.

Dated: 2 September, 1988