Commissioner of Police v Gander

Case [1982] AFPDT 5
JUDGMENT No. ..?k?.eL..~ ..1.e&&
I N THE FEDERAL POLICE ) No. 6 o f 1 9 8 2
1
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - ) No. 7 o f 1982

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

a g a i n s t

PROTECTIVE SERVICE SENIOR CONSTABLE

B A R R Y DESMOND G A N D E R

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

a g a i n s t

FIRST CONSTABLE D A N N Y JOHNSON
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
REASONS FOR DECISION MR J . R . B . NORRIS O . C .
8 O c t o b e r 1 9 8 2
P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e S e n i o r C o n s t a b l e B a r r y Desmond
G a n d e r h a s b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e p u r s u a n t t o
p a r a g r a p h 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) of 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 a r y
R e g u l a t i o n s a n d F i r s t C o n s t a b l e Danny J o h n s o n h a s b e e n c h a r g e d
s a t i s f i e d .
w i t h a n o f f e n c e u n d e r p a r a g r a p h 1 8 ( l ) ( b ) . I t i s a q u e s t i o n o f
f a c t as t o w h e t h e r t h e a s s a u l t o r a s s a u l t s a l l e g e d by M r C h h o t u
t o o k p l a c e . T h e o n u s res t s upon t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o s a t i s f y me
o n t h e b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s , s u b j e c t t o t h i s : t h a t I s h o u l d
b e a r i n m i n d t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e c h a r g e s made a g a i n s t t h e o f f i c e r s
c o n c e r n e d - S c a n e s -v- W i l s o n , 22 FLR 262 a t 26819 . I a m n o t s o
M r C h h o t u , I s h a l l r e f e r t o him f r o m t i m e t o t i m e a s t h e
c o m p l a i n a n t , c o n v i n c e d me t h a t h e was a p e r s o n who was p r e p a r e d t o
t a m p e r w i t h t h e t r u t h i f t o do s o would work t o h i s a d v a n t a g e .
T h a t o f c o u r s e i s n o t t o s a y t h a t h e n e c e s s a r i l y w o u l d l i e t o t h i s
t r i b u n a l b u t i t d o e s f o l l o w t h a t h i s e v i d e n c e m u s t b e s c r u t i n i s e d
w i t h e x t r e m e c a r e . T h e r e i s l i t t l e c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f h i s a l l e g a t i o n s .
M r S i n g h who n o d o u b t b e c a u s e o f h i s own p r o b l e m s a d o p t e d a r a t h e r
C d i s i n t e r e s t e d a t t i t u d e s p o k e o f t h e c o m p l a i n a n t : "Looking a s
t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n c r y i n g a n d h e had a s w e l l i n g on h i s l e f t c h e e k . "
I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o b e i m p r e s s e d w i t h h i s e v i d e n c e a n d I was n o t
i m p r e s s e d by i t , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e l i g h t o f i n t e r a l i a M r D i c k i e ' s
o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n o f i n j u r y o r o f c r y i n g . I
h a v e n o d i f f i c u l t y i n a c c e p t i n g M r D i c k i e a s a p e r s o n who would
make a r e l i a b l e o b s e r v a t i o n and a s a w i t n e s s o f t r u t h . H i s comment
i s v e r i f i e d by t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f D r B r a c k e n . H i s was a d e t a i l e d
e x a m i n a t i o n made f o r a p u r p o s e on 1 7 J u l y . H e f o u n d some
s e n s i t i v i t y t o t o u c h b u t n o t h i n g o b j e c t i v e . H e f o u n d no s e n s i t i v i t y
Cl i n t h e a r e a o f t h e b a c k o f t h e h e a d o t h e r t h a n t h e a r e a o f t h e
r i g h t m a s t o i d p r o c e s s .
C o n s t a b l e Dawes n o t e d h t s hand up t o h i s f a c e b u t saw
n o s i g n o r m a r k s o r t e a r s . C o n s t a b l e P e n d l e b u r y a t 7:45 p.m.
o b s e r v e d s l i g h t s w e l l i n g u n d e r t h e e y e a n d s l i g h t a b r a s i o n . On
t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y a t 4:00 p.m. h e n o t e d t h a t t h e s w e l l i n g h a d g o n e
down s u b s t a n t i a l l y , b u t h e d i d d e f e r t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f d o c t o r s .
M r Gander a n d M r J o h n s o n , b o t h g a v e e v i d e n c e . I was
n o t u n i m p r e s s e d w i t h t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h b o t h o f f i c e r s g a v e t h e i r
e v i d e n c e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g e x p e r t b u t s c r u p u l o u s l y f a i r c r o s s -
e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e o f f i c e r s by M r C h a p p l e . I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h i s
e v i d e n c e , e a c h o f f i c e r s t a t e d t h a t e a c h had l e a r n t o n l y on
2 8 J u l y o f t h e f a c t t h a t M r C h h o t u h a d made a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t
e a c h o f them. I f I a c c e p t t h i s e v i d e n c e , i t mus t f o l l o w t h a t
t h e f a b r i c s u r r o u n d i n g M r ~ h h o t u ' s e v i d e n c e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y

0

d e s t r o y e d a n d h i s t o t a l c r e d i t p u t i n t o j e o p a r d y . I h a v e come
t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n a n t h a s l i t t l e c r e d i b i l i t y
a n d f a r t o o l i t t l e t o b e a c c e p t e d .
I t i s o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o i n s t a n c e some o f t h e many
i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s :  h i s a s s e r t i o n t o M r D i c k i e o f a t h r e a t , d e n i e d
by  M r D i c k i e a s h a v i n g b e e n s a i d t o him; h i s e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g
t o t h e p h r a s e  " m a r r i a g e o f c o n v e n i e n c e " ; t h a t r e l a t i n g t o h i s
a n s w e r  t o q u e s t i o n 5 i n h i s r e c o r d o f i n t e r v i e w a n d t h e a n s w e r s
C! t h a t h e g a v e on p a g e 38 o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t ; t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f
s p i t t i n g a n d o f h i s t r a v e l w i t h i n A u s t r a l i a . I f i n d no n e e d f o r
f u t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n .
M r Gander a n d M r J o h n s o n w e r e s u p p o r t e d i n t h e i r e v i d e n c e
t h a t t h e y e s c o r t e d t h e t h r e e men t o t h e t o i l e t s t o some e x t e n t
p e r h a p s by C o n s t a b l e Gordon. N e i t h e r h e n o r C o n s t a b l e S t a n t o n n o r
S e r g e a n t C h i r g w i n n o t i c e d t h a t d a y a n y d e t a i n e e who a p p e a r e d t o h a v e
b e e n c r y i n g o r who e x h i b i t e d a s w o l l e n cheek . D r S e l e c k i , c a l l e d
on t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e l a s t day o f t h e e v i d e n c e saw M r C h h o t u
a b o u t 7 :00 p.m. o n 16 J u l y . The c o m p l a i n t s h e r e c e i v e d w e r e
d i f f e r e n t t o t h o s e made on t h e n e x t d a y t o D r B r a c k e n a n d w e r e
c o n f i n e d t o t h e zygoma a n d c l a v i c l e . He f o u n d s l i g h t s w e l l i n g
i n t h e a r e a o f t h e r i g h t zygoma a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s may h a v e
b e e n c a u s e d e i t h e r by i t b e i n g i n f l i c t e d o r s u s t a i n e d . He f o u n d
n o g r a z e n o r s i g n s o f haemotoma. Hav ing r e a d t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e
a t p a g e s 8 , 54 a n d 6 5 , h e c o n c l u d e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t e v i d e n c e

0

t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d more damage t h a n h e f o u n d . I t i s n o t e d
t h a t h e r e c e i v e d no c o m p l a i n t o f p a i n i n t h e o c c i p i t a l a r e a o r i n
t h e s t o m a c h .
M r C h a p p l e was mos t p e r s u a s i v e i n s u b m i t t i n g t h a t I
s h o u l d d i f f e r e n t i a t e M r D i c k i e ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s made h a l f t o o n e
h o u r l a t e r a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t and t h o s e o f D r S e l e c k i a t
a b o u t 7 :00 p.m. o n t h e 1 6 t h , w h i c h m i g h t b e t h o u g h t t o b e s i m i l a r
t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f C o n s t a b l e P e n d l e b u r y a b o u t 7:45 on t h a t
O same e v e n i n g . What t r o u b l e s me, h o w e v e r , i s t h a t C o n s t a b l e
P e n d l e b u r y t e s t i f i e d t o a n a b r a s i o n s e e n by no o t h e r w i t n e s s a n d
a l s o on t h e 1 7 t h a t a b o u t 4:00 p.m. some s w e l l i n g . T h i s s e e m s t o

l

d i s a g r e e w i t h D r B r a c k e n and i t i s t o v a r i o u s d e g r e e s a t v a r i a n c e i
I
w i t h M r S i n g h ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s . 1
One d o e s t h e n r e t u r n t o t h e c o m p l a i n a n t . Of h im i t i s
s a i d t h a t h a v i n g on f o u r o c c a s i o n s i n t h e w i t n e s s box g i v e n
s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same v e r s i o n o f t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t , I s h o u l d
a c c e p t h im. It i s i n my o p i n i o n e q u a l l y o p e n t o t h i n k t h a t i t
was a w e l l memor i sed c o n c o c t i o n . A s I h a v e s a i d e a r l i e r , I do
n o t a c c e p t him. I t m u s t , I t h i n k , f o l l o w t h a t n e i t h e r P r o t e c t i v e
S e r v i c e S e n i o r C o n s t a b l e Gander n o r F i r s t C o n s t a b l e Danny J o h n s o n
c a n b e f o u n d t o b e g u i l t y o f a b r e a c h o f d i s c i p l i n e a s r e s p e c t i v e l y
c h a r g e d a n d I s o f i n d . I o r d e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o pay t h e c o s t s
o f t h o s e o f f i c e r s p u r s u a n t t o r e g u l a t i o n 7 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 ) R e g u l a t i o n s .
I o r d e r t h a t i f n o a g r e e m e n t on c o s t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s
i s r e a c h e d w i t h i n 1 4 d a y s , t h e n w i t h i n 7 d a y s t h e r e a f t e r , e a c h
p a r t y w o u l d f o r w a r d t o t h e R e g i s t r a r i n t h e 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 h i s a s s e s s m e n t of c o s t s o r , i n y o u r c a s e , M r C h a p p l e ,
o f w h a t y o u t h o u g h t i t o u g h t t o b e .
------------------
J.R.B. NORRIS Q . C .

Member

Details
AGLC
Commissioner of Police v Gander [1982] AFPDT 5
Case
[1982] AFPDT 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, the Commissioner of Police brought disciplinary charges against Protective Service Senior Constable Barry Desmond Gander and First Constable Danny Johnson. The charges related to allegations of assault made by a detainee, Mr Chhotu. The central issue for the Tribunal was to determine whether the alleged assaults actually took place. The onus was on the Commissioner to prove the charges on the balance of probabilities, considering the seriousness of the allegations.

The Tribunal scrutinised the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the credibility of the complainant, Mr Chhotu. The Tribunal found Mr Chhotu's evidence to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility. There was minimal corroboration of his claims, and several witnesses, including medical professionals, observed no significant injuries that would support the allegations. The Tribunal was particularly persuaded by the observations of Constable Dickie and Dr Bracken, who found no objective signs of injury. Furthermore, the officers' evidence that they escorted the detainees to the toilets was supported by other officers who observed no signs of injury or distress among the detainees.

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's credibility was severely compromised due to numerous inconsistencies in his statements. The medical evidence also did not support the extent of injuries claimed. The observations made by Constable Pendlebury, although noting some minor swelling and abrasion, were inconsistent with those of other witnesses and medical professionals. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that neither Gander nor Johnson could be found guilty of the disciplinary charges. The Tribunal ordered the Commissioner to pay the costs of the officers involved, with a process outlined for determining those costs if the parties could not agree.

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.