Commissioner of Police v Donaldson

[1982] AFPDT 1

I N THE FEDERAL POLICE	1
1 I No. 7 of 1982

D I S C I P L I N A R Y TRIBUNAL 1

THE COkIMISSIONER OF P O L I C E

against

SERGEANT KOBERT ALEXANDER GEORGE

DONALDSON

I N THk MATTER of the 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 1981

REASONS FOR D E C I S I O N : KELLY, J .

1 SEPTEMBER 1 9 8 2

On 10 June 198U the Commissioner o f Po l i ce o f

t he	A u s t r a l i a n	Federal	Po l i ce	i n s t i t u t e d proceedings	pu r suan t
t o Regula t ion	19(1)	o f	the . A u s t r a l i a n	Federa l	Poli.ce

,

( D i s c i p l i n e ) Regulations ( t h e "Regulations") a g a i n s t

Se rgean t Kobert Alexander George Donaldson, a member o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n Federal Po l i ce [ h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d the

" o f f i c e r " ) , i n r e s p e c t of t h r e e a l l e g e d breaches o f

paragraph	18 ( l ) (h)	o f	t he	Regulat ions .	For	reasons	i n t o
which	I	need	n o t p r e s e n t l y	go,	t he	ma t t e r s	d i d n o t proceed.

On 4 June 1982 f r e s h proceedings were i n s t i t u t e d

i n r e s p e c t o f t he same ma t t e r s . Each o f t h e n o t i c e s then

C i s s u e d was c l e a r l y d e f e c t i v e b u t I made amendments under

S. 72 o f t h e Complaints (Aus t r a l i an Federal Po l i ce ) Act ,

1981,	( t h e	"Act")	wi thout	o b j e c t i o n from	t h e	o f f i c e r .	I n
t h e	end	he	was	charged wi th	t h r e e	d i s c i p l i n a r y	o f f ences .

Each	cha rge a l l e g e d t h a t	he	contravened paragraph	1 8 ( l ) ( h )
o f	t h e Regula t ions by	being found	g u i l t y by	t h e Supreme

Court o f t h e Aus t r a l i an C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y on 2 May 1980 o f

an o f f e n c e a g a i n s t a law of t he T e r r i t o r y , s . 5 (1 ) of t h e

Gun Licence Ordinance 1937, o f having i n h i s possess ion a

C, gun f o r which he was no t t h e l i c e n s e e under a gun l i c e n c e .

The n o t i c e s r e s p e c t i v e l y a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s were i n r e l a t i o n

t o -

( a )	one Lucznik 87.177	c a l i b r e a i r r i f l e ,	S e r i a l
No. K5421,

( b ) one Birmingham Small A r m s . 2 2 s i n g l e s h o t

r i f l e , s e r i a l No. ~ 1 3 5 7 8 , and

(c) one Winchester . 2 2 l e v e r a c t i o n r epea t ing

r i f l e , S e r i a l No. 185445.

During t h e course of t h e hear ing before me on 10 and

11 August 1982, 1 s t a t e d t h a t I was s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e

c o n t r a v e n t i o n s a l l e g e d had been proved. This was e f f e c t i v e l y

conceded by M r . 'l..J. Higgins appear ing on beha l f of t he

o f f i c e r . The evidence upon which I was s o s a t i s f i e d was

a	c e r t i f i c a t e o f	conv ic t ion	da t ed	27	J u l y	1982 given	by
t h e	Deputy	R e g i s t r a r of	t h e	Supreme	Court	o f	t h e Aus t r a l i an

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y and s e a l e d wi th t h e S e a l o f t h a t Court.

I heard submissions on p e n a l t y from M r . Higgins

and from MS Vardanega appear ing f o r t he Commissioner. A s

I am t h e duly appointed nominee of requ i r ed t o do by s .67(5) of t h e A c t , I consu l t ed wi th

t h e Commissioner a s t o t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y i n r e s p e c t of t h e proved o f f ences .

Following t h a t c o n s u l t a t i o n and because i n a l l t he c i rcumstances

I was rank from t h a t o f Sergeant t o t h a t of cons ide r ing a s a p e n a l t y t h e r educ t ion o f t he o f f i c e r ' s

S e n i o r Constable , I gave

n o t i c e t o t h e o f f i c e r , a s r equ i r ed by s .67(7) of the A c t , t h a t

I was cons ider ing t h a t reduc t ion . The n o t i c e was se rved on

him on 20 August 1982. I subsequent ly r e c e i v e d from Mr. Higgins ,

on 24 August 1982, a w r i t t e n s t a t emen t which t h e o f f i c e r wishes

me t o t ake i n t o cons ide ra t ion i n dec id ing what pena l ty I should

impose. I t seemed t o me, fol lowing r e c e i p t o f t h a t s t a t emen t ,

t h a t i t was q u e s t i o n whether d e s i r a b l e t h a t I hea r f u r t h e r submissions on the

t h e Tr ibuna l had power t o impose no p e n a l t y

a t a l l even though it was s a t i s f i e d t h a t a d i s c i p l i n a r y of fence

charged had been proved. I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e d e t a i l e d

submiss ionsput on t h i s p o i n t by t h e l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f

t h e p a r t i e s on 26 August 1982.

During t h e course o f t he hear ing t h e p a r t i e s d i r e c t e d

my a t t e n t i o n t o what they cons idered the r e l e v a n t p a r t s o f t he

t r a n s c r i p t s o f proceedings before t h e l ea rned Magis t ra te who

f i r s t heard t h e charges i n r e s p e c t o f t h e weapons and be fo re

Lockhart , J . who, s i t t i n g a s a Judge of t h e Supreme Court o f

t h e Aus t r a l i an C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y , heard t h e appeals a g a i n s t

t h e l ea rned advantage o f hea r ing evidence given by M a g i s t r a t e ' s d e c i s i o n s . Lockhart, J. had t h e

the o f f i c e r who was

cross-examined a t l e n g t h by Mr. K . J . blarr, Q.C. I t h i n k i t

p rope r t o accep t and fo l low ( indeed i t was n o t sugges t ed

t h a t I do o therwise) t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t made by Lockhar t , J.

'l'he evidence g iven i n t he Court o f P e t t y S e s s i o n s

on the t o t h e Supreme Court . t h r e e charges was t r e a t e d a s evidence on t h e appea l

I t was no t suggested t h a t any p a r t o f

t h e evidence P e t t y Sess ions o r i n t h e Supreme Court should be given by t h e o f f i c e r e i t h e r i n t h e Court o f

cons ide red

un t rue .

I accep t t h a t on 20 August 1976 i n v e s t i g a t i n g

p o l i c e found on s e a r c h under a warrant t he t h r e e r i f l e s

r e f e r r e d t o above p o s i t i o n e d between f l o o r j o i s t s i n t h e

under f l o o r a r e a o f t h e o f f i c e r ' s house. Two o f t h e r i f l e s

were p a r t l y wrapped i n an orange c l o t h . One o f t h e - 2 2

c a l i b r e r i f l e s was f i t t e d w i t h a s i l e n c e r . The o f f i c e r

admi t ted t h a t t he weapons were n o t l i c ensed b u t r e f u s e d t o .

say anyth ing f u r t h e r r ega rd ing h i s possess ion o f them a t

t h a t time.

Lockhart, J. accep ted the o f f i c e r ' s ev idence a s

t o t h e way i n which t h e r i f l e s came i n t o h i s pos ses s ion .

H i s Honour s a i d , r e f e r r i n g f i r s t t o t he a i r r i f l e ,

"The a p p e l l a n t s a i d t h a t i t had been i n t h e

possess ion o f h i s f a t h e r f o r some time b e f o r e

he d ied and was then placed i n the garage o f

h i s mother 's home a t A ins l i e . The a p p e l l a n t

has a i n a d i f f e r e n t house. s i s t e r who a l s o l i v e s a t A i n s l i e a l t hough

She has a son who was

aged twelve and i n t e r e s t e d i n r i f l e s . H i s

mother ( o r perhaps h i s s i s t e r ) asked t h e

a p p e l l a n t	i f he	would	s t o r e t he	r i f l e so as
t o g e t i t o u t o f	t h e way	of	the boy	s o t h a t

he	could n o t use it.	The	a p p e l l a n t agreed.
Hence	t h e	r i f l e came	i n t o h i s p o s s e s ~ i o n . ~

He went on,

' A s t o t h e o t h e r two	r i f l e s ,	one being	a
Birmingham	smal l arms	. 2 2	s i n g l e s h o t

r i f l e and the o t h e r being a Winchester

. 2 2 l e v e r a p p e l l a n t s a i d t h a t a c t i o n r e p e a t i n g r i f l e , t h e

they were given t o him

by a woman who was having domest ic problems. She t o l d t he a p p e l l a n t t h a t h e r husband was

d r i n k i n g heav i ly and [she] was a f r a i d t o have t h e

r i f l e s i n the house. She asked t h e a p p e l l a n t

t o s t o r e them f o r her . He took posses s ion o f

them and pu t them i n h i s house. They remained

i n h i s house	u n t i l t h e e v e n t s of	19 and	20
August 1976.

'I'he a p p e l l a n t s a i d t h a t i t never occur red t o

him t o have any of t h e t h r e e weapons l i cenced .

He	s a i d t h a t he never used them."
I n	t h e Court of P e t t y Ses s ions t h e o f f i c e r was

asked why he d i d n o t r e p o r t t h e f a c t t h a t he had come i n t o

posses s ion o f t h e two . 2 2 c a l i b r e r i f l e s . He r e p l i e d ,

"Kepercussions o f what a c t i o n could be taken

a g a i n s t him [ the woman's husband]. She

b e l i e v e d t h a t he was s e t t l i n g down, This

on ly occurred when he was i n t o x i c a t e d t o an

e x t e n t and domestic problems d i d t a k e p l a c e

w i t h i n t he house. She p r e f e r r e d t h a t no

names were mentioned, t h a t i f t h i s happened

then t h e marriage would break up completely."

He was then asked two f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s i n c h i e f . I s e t o u t

t hose q u e s t i o n s and g iven those r i f l e s what the r e p l i e s : -

" I f you had r epo r t ed the f a c t t h a t you'd been

d e t a i l s would you have

been r equ i r ed t o r e p o r t ? - - - C e r t a i n l y t h e

ownership of the r i f l e s - who owned them and

what address , the c i rcumstances .

That i s i r r e s p e c t i v e o f whether you l a y a

charge?---Yes, I b e l i e v e s o , even o f miscel laneous

p r o p e r t y , I would have t o s t a t e - I'm no t t o o

s u r e o f t h i s whether they were found, l o s t o r

what have you -	i n a book b u t t h a t wasn't	t h e
case."

He	was	n o t cross-examined on any o f	t h e evidence j u s t	r e f e r r e d
to .

I t was no t u n t i l November 1979, dur ing t h e h e a r i n g

o f	t h e appea l	be fo re	Lockhart,	J.,	t h a t t h e o f f i c e r t o l d
anyone	i n a u t h o r i t y	t he name	and bus ines s	address o f	t h e woman

who e n t r u s t e d the r i f l e s t o him. Even then t h e name was

given i n w r i t i n g Lockhart , J. heard evidence given by a bfr. Morschel. on ly .

H e and the woman worked a t t h e same p l ace . H i s Honour accepted

t h a t i n 1975 the woman had had a conve r sa t ion w i t h M r .

Morschel	wherein	she	s a i d t h a t she had	been	t h r e a t e n e d wi th
some	f i r ea rms by	h e r husband.	M r .	Eforschel	t o l d h e r t o

s u r r e n d e r t he weapons. I n h i s view she was having r a t h e r

s eve re matrimonial problems. He s a i d t h a t h e r husband was

d r ink ing "a	f a i r b i t "	and	abusing h e r and	t h a t obvious ly
she was	very d i s t u r b e d .	he	evidence j u s t	r e f e r r e d t o was

accep ted by Lockhart , J. a s c o r r o b o r a t i n g t h e ev idence of

t h e o f f i c e r .

When t h e o f f i c e r gave evidence be fo re Lockhar t , J.

he was asked what was h i s purpose i n keeping t h e weapons.

H e r e p l i e d , f o r s a f e keeping " t o i n e f f e c t , t h a t he k e p t t h e s l u g gun Lthe a i r r i f l e j

keep it away from [ h i s ] nephew and

n ieces" and the two . 2 2 c a l i b r e r i f l e s " fo r s e c u r i t y f o r a

female". He a l s o gave evidence t h a t when he came i n t o t he

possess ion o f t h e t h r e e r i f l e s he d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t a

l i c e n c e was neces sa ry f o r them. H e s a i d , "I have always

thought t h a t one was	n o t required".	Lockhart ,	J.	accep ted
t h e evidence	j u s t	r e f e r r e d to .	He	s a i d ,

"'[he a p p e l l a n t gave evidence today which I

accep t a s t o h i s b e l i e f o r s t a t e o f mind when

the guns came i n t o h i s possess ion . In e f f e c t

what he s a i d was t h a t he , a l though n o t a d v e r t i n g

then	i n p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e Gun	Licence Ordinance
because o f h i s e a r l i e r unders tanding	o f	it o r

because o f h i s e a r l i e r b e l i e f a s t o what i t

meant, s imply assumed i n e f f e c t t h a t he was no t

r equ i r ed t o have the guns l i censed ."

When t h e r i f l e s came i n t o t h e posses s ion o f t h e

o f f i c e r General Order 83 governed the a c t i o n t o be taken

by members o f which he was then a member,in connexion wi th any money, o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l ? ' e r r i t o r y P o l i c e Force ,

v a l u a b l e s o r o t h e r p rope r ty ( o t h e r than e x h i b i t s o r p r i s o n e r s '

p rope r ty ) found by, handed t o o r o therwise coming i n t o t h e

posses s ion o f p o l i c e . Although t h e o r d e r purpor ted t o d e a l

g e n e r a l l y w i th	p r o p e r t y	coming	i n t o	t h e	possess ion	o f	p o l i c e ,
i t s d e t a i l e d r e l a t e d on ly t o a c t i o n t o be	i n s t r u c t i o n s	s o	f a r	a s	r e l e v a n t	t o t h i s	c a s e

taken on p rope r ty handed t o

policemen by persons who had found i t . There were t h e r e f o r e

no i n s t r u c t i o n s which met p r e c i s e l y t he two s i t u a t i o n s which

f aced t h e o f f i c e r ,	t h e one	r e l a t i n g	t o the	a i r r i f l e and	t h e
o t h e r t o t he	two	. 2 2	c a l i b r e r i f l e s .	Never the less ,	a s appears

from t h e copy o f t h e o r d e r t endered i n evidence, i t i s

p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t h a t a procedure e x i s t e d f o r d e a l i n g w i t h

p r o p e r t y which	came	i n t o t h e hands	of	an o f f i c e r who	d i d n o t
own	it.	While	t h e procedures	l a i d down	d i d n o t meet p r e c i s e l y

t he s i t u a t i o n s , they n e v e r t h e l e s s should have a f fo rded t o a

s e n i o r non-commissioned o f f i c e r o f t he Aus t r a l i an C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y Po l i ce Force a p p r o p r i a t e guidance a s t o t h e a c t i o n

he should have taken.

No set o f o r d e r s o r i n s t r u c t i o n s can meet eve ry

s i t u a t i o n which may a r i s e . However, o f f i c e r s who, i n t h e

execu t ion of t h e i r du ty , a r e f aced wi th a s e t of c i rcumstances

f o r which no p r e c i s e guidance i s a f fo rded by such o r d e r s o r

i n s t r u c t i o n s ,	ought	t o seek	t h e necessary guidance	by	analogy
from	o r d e r s	o r i n s t r u c t i o n s having	t o do	with	c i rcumstances

o f a b road ly s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r o r from t h e i r s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r s .

Accepting t h a t t h e o f f i c e r fea red t h a t i f h e r e p o r t e d

t h a t t he two . 2 2 c a l i b r e r i f l e s had come i n t o h i s pos ses s ion

f u r t h e r p o l i c e e n q u i r i e s might i n t h e end r e s u l t i n i n j u r y t o

t he woman o r damage t o her marr iage, i t was n e v e r t h e l e s s

i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r him t o keep the r i f l e s w i thou t t e l l i n g

anyone i n a u t h o r i t y over him t h a t he had them. On the

m a t e r i a l p l aced be fo re me i t is p l a i n t h a t no r e l e v a n t

o r d e r o r i n s t r u c t i o n e x i s t e d t o r e q u i r e t h e o f f i c e r ' s

s u p e r i o r t o communicate t he c i rcumstances o f t h e handing

over o f t h e r i f l e s t o t h e o f f i c e r t o t h e woman's husband.

I t i s h a r d l y t o be expected t h a t t he o f f i c e r ' s s u p e r i o r ,

having been t o l d o f t h a t f e a r , would no t have d e a l t s e n s i b l y

wi th t h e problem t o make su re t h a t what t h e o f f i c e r f e a r e d

d i d n o t come about , a t t he same time having due regard t o

t h e t r u e ownership o f t he r i f l e s viewed a g a i n s t t h e f a c t

t h a t they were appa ren t ly no t l i c e n s e d under t h e Gun Licence

Ordinance 1937.

Leaving a s i d e the breaches of t h a t Ordinance, I

cannot i n a l l t h e circumstances f i n d t h a t t h e r e was anything

s i n i s t e r i n t h e o f f i c e r ' s possess ion o f t h e t h r e e r i f l e s .

Neve r the l e s s , he f a i l e d , i n my opin ion , i n h i s pe rcep t ion

o f what h i s du ty a s a Sergeant of Po l i ce was.

I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s c r e t i o n reposed i n

p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n connexion wi th the performance o f t h e i r

d u t i e s . I t is a d i s c r e t i o n t h a t one expec t s t o s e e s e n s i b l y

exe rc i sed . I t i s n o t app rop r i a t e i n t hese reasons t o explore

t h e ambit o f t h e d i s c r e t i o n o r t h e c i rcumstances i n which

p o l i c e o f f i c e r s may e x e r c i s e p roper ly t h e d i s c r e t i o n o r

d i s c r e t i o n s reposed i n them. I t i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r t he purposes

o f	t h i s m a t t e r	t o say	t h a t no	o f f i c e r of	t h e	former	h u s t r a l i a n
C a p i t a l	T e r r i t o r y P o l i c e	Force	could have	a c t e d	and	no	o f f i c e r

o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n Federa l Po l ice may a c t i n pu rpo r t ed e x e r c i s e

o f a d i s c r e t i o n reposed i n him when the a c t i o n is c o n t r a r y

t o a	law o f	the j u r i s d i c t i o n	i n which he was	o r i s a t t h e
r e l e v a n t	time	performing	h i s	duty .

I t fo l lows , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e o f f i c e r had no

co lou r of r i g h t a t t h e time when he rece ived t h e r i f l e s t o

keep them without being t h e h o l d e r o f a l i c e n c e i n r e s p e c t

o f them, f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Gun Licence Ordinance

were app l i cab le t o him i n t h a t regard a s t o any o t h e r c i t i z e n .

He should have perce ived t h a t , whether o r no t h e Gun Licence

Ordinance	operated	i n r e s p e c t	o f	t h e t h r e e r i f l e s ,	i t was
h i s	duty ,	d e s p i t e h i s	f e a r e a r l i e r r e f e r r e d	t o ,	t o t a k e
a c t i o n which	would	have	brought	t o the	a t t e n t i o n o f h i s

s u p e r i o r s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e r i f l e s and the c i rcumstances

i n which they came i n t o h i s possess ion .

In a s s e s s i n g p e n a l t y i t is r e l e v a n t t o c o n s i d e r

t h e scope o f the du ty of	t h e o f f i c e r whose	conduct	i s i n
ques t ion .	More	i s t o be expec ted of	a Sergeant o f P o l i c e

than o f committed by such a Constable may warrant a minimal p e n a l t y a newly appoin ted Constable. A d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e

o r may, i n the proper e x e r c i s e o f t he Commissionerts

d i s c r e t i o n , not be t h e s u b j e c t of proceedings a t a l l whi le

t h e same of fence committed by a s e n i o r non-commissioned

o f f i c e r may well war ran t h i s d i smis sa l .

By s.67(3) o f t h e A c t t h e Tr ibuna l when c o n s t i t u t e d

by t h e Pres iden t o r a Deputy P re s iden t may, i f i t f i n d s t h e

o f f i c e r g u i l t y of breaches o f d i s c i p l i n e and s u b j e c t t o

s u b - s e c t i o n s (S) and (7) t o which I have a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d ,

impose on him i n r e s p e c t of t h e breaches such p e n a l t i e s as i t

deems f i t provided t h a t they a r e p e n a l t i e s which t h e Commissioner

would have had power	t o impose upon the o f f i c e r under t h e
p r e s c r i b e d Regulations	i f he had heard and determined t h e

proceedings	and	found	the o f f i c e r g u i l t y o f	t he breaches	o f
d i s c i p l i n e .	Accordingly	i n t h i s c a s e	t h e Tr ibuna l	has	power
t o

(a ) reprimand t h e o f f i c e r ,

(b) reduce him i n rank, o r

(C) d i smis s him from t h e P o l i c e Force.

'i'hese	a r e t h e on ly p e n a l t i e s which	t h e Tr ibuna l	may	impose
i n r e s p e c t	of	t h e	p a r t i c u l a r	o f f ences .

I t i s n o t sugges ted by o r on b e h a l f o f t h e Commissioner

t h a t t h e o f f i c e r should be dismissed from t h e A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l

Po l i ce .	I t i s , however, contended t h a t he should be reduced
i n rank.	I t has been po in t ed o u t t h a t t h e rank o f Se rgean t

i s an impor tan t one wi th in t h e p o l i c e s e r v i c e r e q u i r i n g t h e

h o l d e r	t o e x h i b i t a	number	of	q u a l i t i e s ,	n o t	t h e	l e a s t o f	which
are	d e p e n d a b i l i t y ,	l e a d e r s h i p ,	awareness	o f	h i s	r o l e	as	a
l e a d e r o f	a	group,	i n t e g r i t y and	l o y a l t y .	He	may	be	r e q u i r e d

t o i nduc t new members t o a r e a s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ma in t a in

d i s c i p l i n e and w e l f a r e , supe rv i se work and r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d

by t h e equipment, group under h i s c o n t r o l , i s s u e and account f o r . s p e c i a l i s e d

p r epa re and conduct t r a i n i n g programmes and a s s e s s

and develop subord ina tes . I t i s s a i d t h a t he must be a person

i n whom subord ina t e s have complete f a i t h , based upon t h e

knowledge t h a t he i s shown by h i s d i l i g e n c e , r e l i a b i l i t y , good

conduct and t h e e x e r c i s e o f common sense , t h a t he dese rves

t h e i r r e s p e c t and t r u s t .

I t is s a i d t h a t t he c i rcumstances surrounding t h e

d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ences were such t h a t t he o f f i c e r d i d n o t measure

up t o t h e h igh s t anda rds expected o f a Sergeant and t h a t ,

a cco rd ing ly , he ought t o be reduced i n rank.

On t h e o t h e r hand, it i s submit ted on beha l f o f t h e

o f f i c e r t h a t t he p rope r course f o r t he T r ibuna l t o t ake i s

t o impose no p e n a l t y a t a l l . C e r t a i n l y , it i s submi t ted ,

reduc t ion i n rank i s i n a l l the c i rcumstances e n t i r e l y

i napprop r i a t e .

A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e submiss ions made I t ake

t h e view t h a t t h e T r ibuna l a c t i n g wi th t h e powers e n t r u s t e d

t o t he f o r d i s c i p l i n a r y Commissioner i n r e s p e c t of t h e impos i t i on o f p e n a l t i e s

o f f e n c e s may n o t impose no p e n a l t y a t a l l .

S.67(3) o f t he Act r eads i n p a r t : -

'Where t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y Tr ibuna l , i n proceedings

heard by i t i n pursuance of s u b - s e c t i o n (1) o r

( 2 ) , f i n d s	a	member	g u i l t y o f	a b reach	o f
d i s c i p l i n e	-

(a ) i f t h e Tr ibuna l i s c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e

P r e s i d e n t o r a Deputy P r e s i d e n t - t h e

T r i b u n a l may, s u b j e c t t o s u b - s e c t i o n s

(S) and ( 7 ) , impose on t h e member, i n

r e s p e c t o f t h e breach o f d i s c i p l i n e ,

such p e n a l t y a s t h e Tr ibuna l deems f i t ,

be ing a p e n a l t y t h a t t h e Commissioner

would have had t h e power t o impose upon

t h e	member,	under	t he	p r e s c r i b e d
r e g u l a t i o n s ,	i n r e s p e c t	o f	t h e	breach

o f d i s c i p l i n e i f t he Commissioner had

h e a r d and determined the proceedings and

found t h e member g u i l t y o f t h a t b reach

o f d i s c i p l i n e ; "

S.68 of t h e A c t provides f o r appea l s from p e n a l t i e s

imposed by t h e Commissioner on a member i n r e s p e c t o f a

breach of d i s c i p l i n e . The member may appea l on t h e ground

t h a t t he p e n a l t y i s unduly seve re o r unau tho r i s ed by law.

The	Attorney-General	may	appea l on	t h e ground t h a t t h e p e n a l t y
imposed on	the member	i n r e s p e c t of	t he breach	i s inadequate .

T h e r e a f t e r t he powers o f t he D i sc ip l ina ry Tr ibuna l are s e t

o u t i n s .68(5) . I t reads: -

"The D i s c i p l i n a r y Tr ibuna l c o n s t i t u t e d by

t h e P r e s i d e n t o r a Deputy P r e s i d e n t s h a l l

hea r and determine t h e appeal and may-

( a ) a f f i r m t h e p e n a l t y imposed on t h e member

i n r e s p e c t	o f	t h e breach	o f	d i s c i p l i n e ;	o r
(b)	s e t a s i d e	t h e p e n a l t y	imposed	on	t h e member

i n r e s p e c t o f t h e breach of d i s c i p l i n e and

s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h a t p e n a l t y such o t h e r

pena l ty a s t h e Tr ibuna l deems f i t , be ing a

p e n a l t y	t h a t	t h e Commissioner	would	have
had	the power	t o impose	under	t he p r e s c r i b e d
r e g u l a t i o n s	i f he	had	heard	the proceedings

and had found t h e member g u i l t y o f t h e breach

o f d i s c i p l i n e , "

If t h e Commissioner had power t o f i n d g u i l t b u t t o

impose no p e n a l t y , t h e language of S .68(S) i s , on an appeal

a g a i n s t	l en iency	by	t h e	At torney-General ,	i n a p p r o p r i a t e	t o
a l l ow s u b s t i t u t i o n o f	a	p e n a l t y when	none	has	been	imposed,

The Tr ibuna l may "af f i rm t h e penal ty" o r l l s u b s t i t u t e such o t h e r 1

p e n a l t y a s [it] deems f i t 1 ' a f t e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h a t imposed.

The a p p e l l a t e power o f t h e Tr ibuna l n e c e s s a r i l y p o s t u l a t e s

impos i t ion of a pena l ty once t h e Conunissioner f i n d s g u i l t . I t 1

would be odd i f t h e Act made no p rov i s ion f o r an appea l by t h e	1
l

Attorney-General i f t he Commissioner e x e r c i s e d a power given l

him	t o impose	no p e n a l t y even	though	f i n d i n g t h e member	g u i l t y	I
I
of	t h e	d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence	charged,	No	s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n	i n

i

t h e Act o r Regulat ions g i v e s power t o t h e Commissioner o r

l

T r ibuna l t o d i smiss a	charge even	though	t h e o f f ence	i s found
proved.

,
l

Regulation 19(1) p rov ides t h a t t h e Commissioner may,

i f he t h i n k s f i t , i n s t i t u t e proceedings a g a i n s t a member i n

l

r e l a t i o n t o a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence . When he i s r e q u i r e d t o I

c o n s i d e r p e n a l t y	i n	r e s p e c t	of	such	an	offence	Regula t ion	22	1
l

prov ides t h a t t h e Commissioner may impose one of a number of l

p e n a l t i e s .	The	d i s t i n c t i o n between	t h e phrase	"may,	i f he	t h i n k s
f i t 1 * and	t h e word	"may"	i n d i c a t e s t h a t t he	Commissioner	has	the

w i d e s t d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s p e c t of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of proceedings

b u t t h a t h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f p e n a l t i e s i s l i m i t e d t o t h e

cho ice of which pena l ty he w i l l impose.	I conclude t h a t t h e
word "may*' appear ing i n s.67(3)	i s t o be read a s **shall1*.

Before t u rn ing t o t h e d e t a i l e d submissions a s t o

p e n a l t y p u t on beha l f of t h e o f f i c e r , I s e t ou t i n summary form

a h i s t o r y a g a i n s t o f t he d i s c i p l i n a r y and o t h e r proceedings taken

t h e o f f i c e r .

On 20 May 1976 t h e o f f i c e r , t hen , a s I have i n d i c a t e d ,

a member o f the Aus t r a l i an C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y P o l i c e Force, was

suspended pu r suan t t o S. 45 (2) o f t h e P o l i c e ( D i s c i p l i n a r y

P r o v i s i o n s ) Ordinance 1972 i n connexion wi th a charge of l

consp i r acy l a i d a g a i n s t him.

On 20 August 1976 he was charged wi th s t e a l i n g a

l a p e l badge and on 27 August 1976 he was charged wi th s i x l

f u r t h e r o f f ences . These included charges i n r e s p e c t o f t h e

un l i censed posses s ion of t he t h r e e r i f l e s ( t he " r i f l e chargesw).

On 4 February 1977 he was convic ted i n t h e Court of

P e t t y Ses s ions of t h r e e offences and i n r e s p e c t o f each was

f i n e d $30. He was thereupon dismissed by t h e then Commissioner.

On 7 February 1977 he was convic ted o f t h e r i f l e charges. I n

r e s p e c t o f each he was f i n e d $15. On 3 June 1977 h i s d i smis sa l

was quashed T e r r i t o r y by Franki , i n t he Supreme Court o f t he A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l

J. (1977) 15 A.C.T.H.39. Suspension

cont inued. An appea l t o t he Federa l Court a g a i n s t t h e d e c i s i o n

o f Franki , J. which quashed the d i s m i s s a l was i n t u r n d i smissed ,

i t would appear on 2 February 1978, (1978) 19 A.L.R.	235.
Desp i te h i s submissions h i s suspension cont inued.

I n A p r i l 1978 he s u c c e s s f u l l y sought a s e p a r a t e t r i a l

i n r e s p e c t o f t he conspiracy charge l a i d a g a i n s t him. On 29

June 1979, more than t h r e e yea r s a f t e r t h e proceedings commenced,

t h e o f f i c e r was a c q u i t t e d of the consp i racy charge. T h e r e a f t e r

h i s suspension cont inued i n r e s p e c t o f t he o t h e r charges .

On 9 October 1979 one o f t he s i x charges r e f e r f e d t o

above was d i smissed leav ing s i x s t i l l t o be d e a l t with.

On 2 November 1979 the o f f i c e r was appoin ted a

member of the A u s t r a l i a n Federal Po l i ce . He was immediately

suspended from duty.

On 2 May 1980 t h e o f f i c e r ' s appea l t o t h e Supreme Court

o f t h e Aus t r a l i an C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y i n r e s p e c t o f the charge l a i d

on 20 August 1976 succeeded as i t d i d i n r e s p e c t o f one o f t he

o t h e r s i x charges. H i s appea l i n r e s p e c t o f t h e r i f l e charges

and one o t h e r charge wi th which I need n o t concern myself was

l

dismissed.

On 3 June 1980 Lockhart , J. imposed p e n a l t i e s i n r e s p e c t

of t h e r i f l e charges . On 10 June 1980 the Commissioner i n s t i t u t e d

proceedings i n r e s p e c t o f t h e conv ic t ions on t h e r i f l e charges .

l

On	11	J u l y	1980	t h e	a p p e l l a n t	o b t a i n e d an	o r d e r	n i s i	1
i

f o r a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n t o p reven t t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n and/or

hea r ing o f proceedings under t he Regulat ions i n r e s p e c t o f t h e

a l l e g e d d i s c i p l i n a r y of fences . A t t h e same t ime he ob ta ined an 1

o r d e r n i s i c a l l i n g upon t h e respondent Commissioner t o show cause

why a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i should n o t i s s u e t o quash t h e

Commissioner's d e c i s i o n made on 2 November 1979 t o suspend him

from duty on and from 19 October 1979. I n due cou r se t h e o r d e r s I

n i s i were discharged by Davies, J. i n t h e Supreme Court o f t he

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . An appeal t o t h e Federa l Court

f a i l e d on 17 August 1981. By t h a t time t h e Act had been passed

and t h e proceedings i n s t i t u t e d on 10 June 1980 were d i scont inued .

The de l ay between t h e d i smis sa l o f t h e l a s t appeal

and	t h e	i n s t i t u t i o n	of	t h e	f r e s h d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings	on
4	June 1982 i s ,	I	t h i n k ,	t o be expla ined by	t h e	f a c t t h a t t h e

Act , which had been a s s e n t e d t o on 9 Apr i l 1981, was expected

t o come i n t o f o r c e much e a r l i e r than i t d i d on 1 May 1982.

For well over s i x y e a r s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e o f f i c e r has

been	suspended,	admi t t ed ly e f f e c t i v e l y wi th pay ,	from	t h e
performance	of	h i s d u t i e s as	a	p o l i c e o f f i c e r .

The de l ay must have had a s e r i o u s e f f e c t on the

o f f i c e r ' s ca ree r . I n t he r e s u l t , i t i s accep ted by the

Commissioner t h a t h i s d i s m i s s a l from the A u s t r a l i a n Federa l

P o l i c e would n o t have been app rop r i a t e . Had he been reduced

i n rank t o , say , a Sen ior Constable i n 1976, he would have

had t h e oppor tun i ty t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h imse l f and may we l l by

now have a t t a i n e d a rank h i g h e r than t h a t which he p r e s e n t l y

ho lds .	I	do no t need	t o s p e c u l a t e on	t h i s .	I t i s s u f f i c i e n t ,
I	t h i n k , t h a t	t he	p o s s i b i l i t y	i s	t h e r e .

I t was submit ted on beha l f o f t h e o f f i c e r , t r e n c h a n t l y

I t h i n k , t o t h e d e l a y were t h a t i t i s immater ia l t h a t t h e c i rcumstances l ead ing l

n o t brought about by t h e Commissioner. The l

submiss ions went on,

"The	a l l e g a t i o n s	t h a t were	d i smissed were	no t
i n v i t e d	by	[ t h e	o f f i c e r ]	e i . ther ."

I t was a l s o submi t ted on beha l f o f t he o f f i c e r t h a t

he has a l r e a d y r ece ived what was desc r ibed a s a de f a c t o punishment by v i r t u e o f h i s suspension from du ty and the

a l l e g e d s h i f t i n g grounds t h e r e f o r s i n c e 20 May 1976. I do

n o t a c c e p t t h i s submission. The de l ay and i t s e f f e c t s have

t o be taken i n t o account bu t t hey do n o t , i n my op in ion ,

c o n s t i t u t e a punishment.

There i s a s e r i o u s r i s k t h a t t h e o f f i c e r ' s h i s t o r y

s i n c e 1976 (and what I have recounted does n o t by any means
cover a l l o f it s i n c e one cannot b u t be	aware o f c i v i l proceedings
taken by him i n r e s p e c t of	t h e happenings o f 20 August 1976) may

c loud t h e i s s u e wi th which I have t o dea l . I n subs tance t h a t

i s s u e is whether, t ak ing due account o f a l l t h e c i rcumstances ,

i nc lud ing the n a t u r e o f t he d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e s and t h e

o f f i c e r ' s c h a r a c t e r and record as d i s c l o s e d by t h e evidence,

i t is approp r i a t e t o reduce him i n rank. That h i s conduct

i n r e s p e c t of t h e r i f l e s was i l l e g a l cannot be ques t ioned .

Despi te t h i s , i t was accep ted by Lockhart , J. t h a t t h e r e was

no th ing s i n i s t e r i n t h a t conduct and no th ing p l aced be fo re me

would l e a d me In Scanes ,v. Wilson, (1974) 2 2 F.L.R. t o a c o n t r a r y view.

262, Fox, J.

s a i d a t p.272,

"To answer d i s h o n e s t l y was very wrong, and

t o be	dep r i ca t ed .	But	i n t he	c i rcumstances
what	[ t h e	a p p e l l a n t	Constables J	d i d was

- unders tandably human. I t would be dangerous

t o impose on t h e P o l i c e Force a s t a n d a r d i n

r e l a t i o n t o such ma t t e r s	which	i s ve ry much
h i g h e r than	t h a t observed by	t h e community

i n genera l . .lhe conc lus ion t h a t because o f

t h e	un t rue	s t a t emen t s	no	t r u s t	could be
reposed	i n t h e	a p p e l l a n t s	and	no	r e l i a n c e

could be p l a c e d on them p rope r ly t o perform

t h e i r d u t i e s , seems t o me, wi th r e s p e c t , t o

be unsound,	and n o t based on	o r d i n a r y human
experience."

I n my opin ion t h e o f f i c e r is t o be d e a l t w i th because

4

he was found g u i l t y o f t h e t h r e e of fences w i th which I am

concerned. But i t i s a l s o t o be taken i n t o account t h a t he

f a i l e d i n h i s p e r c e p t i o n of what h i s duty as a Sergeant o f

P o l i c e was.

I t a k e i n t o account t h e t e s t i m o n i a l s which were

p u t i n evidence and I . h a v e r ega rd t o h i s r e c o r d as a p o l i c e

o f f i c e r up t o 20 May 1976, n o t i n g t h a t he was chosen t o

a t t e n d a s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e A u s t r a l i a n P o l i c e O f f i c e r a t

Expo 67 i n Canada. I n o t e , t oo , t h a t h e has once been

commended f o r conduct which showed	i n i t i a t i v e and courage.
Even	the only reprimand which he had e a r l i e r r ece ived could

be p u t down	t o an excess o f z e a l a l though ,	it must be	s a i d ,
t h a t excess showed a l s o some	l ack of	common	sense .

Although I acknowledge a s a c c u r a t e t h e submissions

p u t on beha l f	of	t he	Commissioner	concerning	t h e high	s t a n d a r d s
which	may	p rope r ly be	demanded o f	a	Sergeant o f P o l i c e ,	i n t h e

end I am n o t persuaded t h a t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e o f f i c e r

be reduced i n rank.

W

In t h e m a t e r i a l p laced before me fo l lowing t h e

n o t i c e given on 20 August 1982, r e f e rence was made t o t h e

t r ea tmen t accorded o t h e r p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who had had t h e i r

conduct cons ide red by Courts . I have n o t taken t h a t m a t e r i a l

i n t o account , deeming i t i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o do s o i n t he absence

o f admiss ions concerning o r proof t o my reasonable s a t i s f a c t i o n

o f t h e such m a t e r i a l m a t t e r s i n ques t ion . The course adopted i n submi t t i ng

i s , I t h i n k , t o be deprecated.

I n a l l t h e c i rcumstances I t h i n k t h e p rope r p e n a l t y

i s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r should be reprimanded. i n r e s p e c t o f each o f t h e t h r e e d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ences

I do n o t t h ink such a

reprimand should be taken i n t o account f o r t h e two y e a r s f o r

which	General Order 6 , paragraph	3 2 ,	o f	t he	A u s t r a l i a n	Federa l
P o l i c e	General Orders	p rov ides	t h a t i t may.	If	t h e	Regulat ions

p e r m i t t e d me t o impose what might be desc r ibed a s a mild

reprimand I would have done s o i n each case . But i n any even t

I t h i n k some reprimand should have been imposed and t h i s

no twi ths t and ing t h e view I t a k e t h a t I am n o t pe rmi t t ed by

t h e l e g i s l a t i o n t o do o t h e r than impose a pena l ty .

I o r d e r fo rmal ly t h a t i n r e s p e c t of each o f t h e

t h r e e d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ences of which I have found t h e o f f i c e r

g u i l t y he be reprimanded.

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e 15 preceding

pages a r e a t r u e copy o f	t h e Reasons	f o r
Decision h e r e i n o f h i s Honour	Mr.	J u s t i c e

Kel ly , P re s iden t o f t he Federa l P o l i c e

D i s c i p l i n a r y Tr ibunal .

Dated: 1 September 1982