Commissioner of Police v Ninness

[1982] AFPDT 2

FEDERAL POLICE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1 No. 2 of 1982

Between .- -

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
and

DETECTIVE SERGEANT RICHARD THOMAS NINNESS

f lo ,~gsy 21 d o ~,inh'H /Il#z

REASONS FOR DECIS ION

D e t e c t i v e S e r g e a n t R i c h a r d Thomas N inness appeared

b e f o r e me charged w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g o f f e n c e s :

1. Pu rsuan t t o Pa rag raph 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) o f 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 e )
R e g u l a t i o n s	t h a t h e	a t Woden	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 on
1 9 t h F e b r u a r y ,	1982 was	g u i l t y o f
i m p r o p e r	c o n d u c t	i n h i s o f f i c i a l

c a p a c i t y ; and

P u r s u a n t t o Pa rag raph 1 8 ( 1 ) ( g ) o f 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 e )

R e g u l a t i o n s t h a t he a t Woden 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 c n

1 9 t h Feb rua ry , 1982 d i d a c t i n a

manner t h a t b r o u g h t d i s c r e d i t t o t h e

r e p u t a t i o n	o f	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 .

H i s s Honcope on b e h a l f o f t h e Commiss ioner o f 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 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h a r g e p u r s u a n t

t o p a r a g r a p h 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) was t o p r o c e e d i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e

w i t h t h e cha rge p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 1 8 ( 1 ) ( g ) o n l y t o p r o c e e d

- i n t h e e v e n t t h e r e was n o t a f i n d i n g i n f a v o u r o f t h e

Commiss ione r i n r e s p e c t o f t h e f i r s t charge . The p a r t i c u l a r s

p r o v i d e d i n r e s p e c t o f each o f t h e charges was i d e n t i c a l

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g terms:

" t h a t t h e s a i d R i c h a r d Thomas Ninness

on 1 9 t h February, 1982 a t Woden 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 , d i d b y means

o f i n t i m i d a t i o n , i n d u c e James McKenzie

K i r k p a t r i c k t o s i g n a w r i t t e n s ta tement ,

wh ich s a i d s t a t e m e n t James McKenzie K i r k p a t r i c k

wou ld n o t o t h e r w i s e have s ignedn.

Paragraph 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) o f 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 l i p l i n e ) R e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s :

A member o f f e n c e and i s g u i l t y o f a d i s c i p l i n a r y

i s s u b j e c t t o punishment i n

accordance w i t h these R e g u l a t i o n s i f t h e

member	i s g u i l t y o f d i s g r a c e f u l o r
improper conduct	e i t h e r i n h i s o f f i c i a l

c a p a c i t y o r o the rw ise ,

Paragraph 1 8 ( 1 ) ( g ) o f 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 l i p l i n e ) R e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s :

A member o f f e n c e and i s g u i l t y o f a d i s c i p l i n a r y

i s s u b j e c t t o punishment i n

accordance	w i t h	t h e s e	R e g u l a t i o n s	i f t h e
member	a c t s	i n a manner	t h a t b r i n g s ,	o r

i s l i k e l y t o b r i n g d i s c r e d i t t o t h e

r e p u t a t i o n	o f	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 ,

I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n r e s p e c t o f t h e charge

p u r s u a n t t o paragraph 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) t h e Commissioner has e l e c t e d

t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e Sergeant was a c t i n g i n h i s o f f i c i a l

c a p a c i t y .	F u r t h e r ,	i n r e s p e c t	of	t h e	charge	p u r s u a n t	t o
p a r a g r a p h	1 8 ( 1 ) ( g )	t h e	Commissioner	has	a l l e g e d	t h a t	t h e

a c t i o n s o f t h e Sergeant d i d b r i n g d i s c r e d i t t o t h e r e p u t a t i o n

o f 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 . These m a t t e r s a r e d i s c u s s e d

i n d e t a i l below.

The onus o f p roo f t o be a p p l i e d b y t h e T r i b u n a l

i n r e s p e c t	o f	such	h e a r i n g s	i s t h e	c i v i l s t a n d a r d	o f p r o o f
on	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	b u t	t a k i n g	i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n
t h e	s e r i o u s n e s s	and	g r a v i t y o f	t h e	a l l e g a t i o n o r	charge made,

t h e i n h e r e n t u n l i k e l i h o o d o f an o c c u r r e n c e o f a g i v e n

d e s c r i p t i o n , o r t h e g r a v i t y o f consequences f o l l o w i n g

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

- CF Fox J. i n Scanes -v- Wi lson 1974 22FLR 262 a t pages 268

and 269.	Such	an	approach t o t h e onus of	p r o o f has been t a k e n
i n two	e a r l i e r m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h i s T r i b u n a l	-	CF	K e l l y J .

P r e s i d e n t	i n t h e Commissioner	of	P o l i c e -v -	Webeck	( 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 T r i b u n a l	Number	3	of	1982)	2 4 t h August,

1982; and M r N o r r i s QC Member o f t h e T r i b u n a l i n

Commissioner o f P o l i c e -v- Gander and Johnson ( 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 T r i b u n a l Numbers 6 and 7 o f 1982) on

8 t h October, 1982.

The i n c i d e n t a r i s e s f r o m a mo to r v e h i c l e c o l l i s i o n

on 1 9 t h February, 1982 i n Newcas t l e S t r e e t , Fyshwick, A.C.T.

I n t h e c o l l i s i o n a v e h i c l e d r i v e n b y James K i r k p a t r i c k

c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e r e a r o f a v e h i c l e d r i v e n by B r i t t a Ninness,

t h e s i s t e r - i n - l a w o f Sergeant N inness . The a c t u a l d e t a i l s o f

t h e	c o l l i s i o n a r e f o r	t h e p r e s e n t	purposes	n o t d i r e c t l y
re1e;ant.	I t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o say	t h a t on	ev idence	b e f o r e

me M r K i r k p a t r i c k d e n i e s any l i a b i l i t y i n h im f o r t h e

a c c i d e n t . Mrs N inness c l a i m s i t was n o t h e r f a u l t b u t t h e

f a u l t o f M r K i r k p a t r i c k t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t occu r red . The

g e n e r a l	l o c a t i o n and	n a t u r e o f t h e	a c c i d e n t	i s s e t	o u t	i n
t h e	d iagram	p r e p a r e d	b y M r K i r k p a t r i c k	and	t e n d e r e d	i n t h i s

m a t t e r and marked E x h i b i t "Ct ' . Photographs o f t h e r e l e v a n t

damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s were a l s o t e n d e r e d and recei;ed i n

t h e h e a r i n g . Se rgean t Ninness gave sworn ev idence t h a t

i n f a c t	M r K i r k p a t r i c k made	s u b s t a n t i a l	admiss ions	o f
l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e	a c c i d e n t	t o h im	l a t e r a t t h e	P o l i c e

S t a t i o n and a l s o s i g n e d a s ta temen t a d m i t t i n g c i v i l

l i a b i l i t y - E x h i b i t " B w . M r K i r k p a t r i c k i n d i c a t e d t h a t

w h i l s t he d i d a d m i t l i a b i l i t y and s i g n E x h i b i t " B n he

d e n i e s some o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f admiss ion o f l i a b i l i t y

a t t r i b u t e d t o h im b y Sergeant Ninness. These m a t t e r s a r e

d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l below. F o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t

M r K i r k p a t r i c k went	t o t h e Woden	V a l l e y	P o l i c e S t a t i o n	t o
r e p o r t	t h e	a c c i d e n t .	I t i s t h e r e	t h a t K r K i r k p a t r i c k
a l l e g e s	t h e	p r e s e n t	charges	arose.

The g i s t o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t Se rgean t N inness

i s t h a t he s t a t e d t o M r K i r k p a t r i c k i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n a t

o r o u t s i d e t h e Woden V a l l e y P o l i c e S t a t i o n on 1 9 t h February ,

1982 t h a t i f M r K i r k p a t r i c k d i d n o t a d m i t l i a b i l i t y f o r

t h e a c c i d e n t t h e n Sergean t N inness wou ld have h i m cha rged

o r a r r a n i e t o ha;e h i m charged w i t h n e g l i g e n t dr i ; ing (an

o f f e n c e - u n d e r t h e M o t o r T r a f f i c Ord inance o f 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 ) .	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	c l a i m s	t h a t	i n h i s
o p i n i o n .he	was	n o t	l i a b l e f o r t h e	a c c i d e n t	b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s ,
t o a;o-id	t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f such	a charge,	he	a d m i t t e d	l i a b i l i t y

t o Se rgean t N inness f o r t h e a c c i d e n t and s u b s e q u e n t l y s i g n e d

E x h i b i t " B " s t a t i n g he was p r e p a r e d t o accep t l i a b i l i t y f o r

damage s u f f e r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t t o t h e v e h i c l e drl;en by

Mrs N inness . I t i s common ground between Sergeant N inness

and	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	t h a t	t h e r e was	a	c o n v e r s a t i o n	c o n c e r n i n g
t h e	a c c i d e n t	i n and	o u t s i d e	t h e Woden	V a l l e y	P o l i c e S t a t i o n

on t h e day i n q u e s t i o n and no o t h e r pe rson was p r e s e n t o r

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

There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n f l i c t between t h e two men as t o t h e

c o n t e n t s o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n . l

Mrs Ninness was a t t h e c o u n t e r o f t h e r e c e p t i o n a r e a

a t t h e	Woden	V a l l e y	P o l i c e S t a t i o n	i n t h e	process	o f r e p o r t i n g
t h e a c c i d e n t a r r i v e d a t t h e S t a t i o n .	t o S e n i o r	Cons tab le	Van	Akker	when	M r K i r k p a t r i c k

Sergeant Ninness who was on d u t y i n

cha rge	o f	D e t e c t i v e s	a t t h e S t a t i o n on	t h a t day	had e a r l i e r
n o t i c e d h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w	a t t h e	c o u n t e r	and	had	b r i e f l y

e n q u i r e d o f h e r t h e reason f o r h e r b e i n g t h e r e and what had

occu r red . A t t h a t s t a g e he p l a y e d no p a r t i n h e r r e p o r t i n g

of t h e a c c i d e n t b u t i n d i c a t e d t o h e r t h a t he would speak t o

h e r u p s t a i r s l a t e r . He f u r t h e r asked S e n i o r Constab le Van Akker

f o r M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s name and d e t a i l s e t c . and reques ted h i m

t o t e l e p h o n e h im when M r K i r k p a t r i c k had completed h i s

d i s c u s s i o n w i t h S e n i o r Cons tab le Van Akker c o n c e r n i n g t h e

a c c i d e n t . S e n i o r Cons tab le Van Akker i n r e c e i v i n g t h e two

d r i v e r s r e p o r t s o f t h e a c c i d e n t comple ted an a c c i d e n t f o r m

wh ich	i s e x h i b i t e d i n t h i s h e a r i n g and marked "G*.
There	i s a c o n f l i c t between S e n i o r Cons tab le Van Akker and

M r K i r k p a t r i c k	as	t o what	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	a d m i t t e d	c o n c e r n i n g
h i s r o l e i n t h e	acc iden t .	T h i s m a t t e r p l a y s	some	r o l e on	t h e

i s s u e o f M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s	c r e d i t and w i l l be d i scussed	i n more
d e t a i l below.

. When Mrs Ninness had comple ted h e r r o l e i n t h e r e p o r t i n g

o f t h e a c c i d e n t she went u p s t a i r s and o v e r a cup o f c o f f e e

1

d i s c u s s e d t h e a c c i d e n t w i t h Sergeant Ninness. Meanwhi le

6 f M r K i r k p a t r i c k was r e p o r t i n g t h e a c c i d e n t t o Constab le Van Akker

*

d o w n s t a i r s .	F o l l o w i n g a	phone	c a l l f r o m	Cons tab le	Van	Akker
Se rgean t	N inness	proceeded	d o w n s t a i r s	and	spoke	t o M r K i r k p a t r i c k .

There was an i n i t i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e two

men i n t h e f o y e r o f t h e P o l i c e S t a t i o n a f t e r wh ich t h e y

p roceeded t o an a r e a i n t h e c a r p a r k o u t s i d e nea r where t h e

v e h i c l e d r i v e n b y Mrs N inness was parked. A t t h i s l o c a t i o n

a l o n g e r c o n v e r s a t i o n o c c u r r e d between t h e two men. I t i s

t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s between Sergeant N inness and

M r K i r k p a t r i c k a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f d i s p u t e

and c o n f l i c t i n t h i s case. The c o n t e n t o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n

i s d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l be low.

A t t h e c o m p l e t i o n of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e Sergeant

asked M r K i r k p a t r i c k t o come i n s i d e and t a k e a s e a t i n t h e

f o y e r and he proceeded u p s t a i r s and completed t h e s t a t e m e n t

* C,

-i w h i c h i s E x h i b i t " 8 " i n t h e proceed ings . The Sergean t t h e n

went down t o where M r K i r k p a t r i c k was and asked h i m t o

accompany	h im	u p s t a i r s .	I n an	u p s t a i r s	o f f i c e a r e a	t h e
S e r g e a n t	p r e s e n t e d	E x h i b i t	'B'	t o M r K i r k p a t r i c k	and	r e q u e s t e d

! h i m t o s i g n i t. A t t h a t s t a g e t h e r e was a d i s c u s s i o n about

t h e t y p e o f c a r Mrs N inness was d r i v i n g . A p p a r e n t l y

t h e c a r was a Commodore v e h i c l e b u t E x h i b i t " B m had termed

f	i t a Monaro v e h i c l e .	I t was	agreed t h a t no amendment need
?

be made t o t h e s ta temen t . M r K i r k p a t r i c k then s i g n e d t h e

F

s t a t e m e n t wh ich Sergean t N inness w i tnessed and Sergean t N inness

r e q u e s t e d	one	o f h i s c o l l e a g u e s ,	S e n i o r	D e t e c t i v e	Hepworth
as	he	t h e n was,	t o s i g n t h e s ta tement .	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	was

C) t h e n g i v e n a copy o f t h e s t a t e m e n t and then l e f t t h e P o l i c e

S t a t i o n .	There	i s v i r t u a l l y no	d i s p u t e ove r	t h e	e v e n t s	s e t
o u t be low.	The	whole	case	i s r e s o l v e d ove r	t h e	c o n t e n t s

o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d between t h e two men i n t h e

f o y e r o f t h e P o l i c e S t a t i o n and o u t s i d e t h e P o l i c e S t a t i o n i n

t h e c a r p a r k area.

M r K i r k p a t r i c k s t a t e s t h a t as he was i n t h e

p r o c e s s o f l e a v i n g t h e P o l i c e S t a t i o n he o n l y then r e a l i s e d

t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between Sergeant N inness ' name and

t h e name o f Mrs Ninness. M r K i r k p a t r i c k then r e t u r n e d t o

h im e m p l o y e r ' s premises and d i scussed t h e m a t t e r w i t h h i s

employer and h i s employer 's wi fe . W i t h t h e encouragement

o f t h o s e pe rsons M r K i r k p a t r i c k t h e n dec ided a c o m p l a i n t

s h o u l d be made a g a i n s t Sergeant N inness f o r h i s r o l e i n

t h i s a f f a i r . A number of phone c a l l s and d i s c u s s i o n s

o c c u r r e d between	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	and	h i s employer	w i t h	s e n i o r
members	o f	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 Force.	On
2 3 r d	F e b r u a r y	1982	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	swore	a S t a t u t o r y

D e c l a r a t i o n wh ich i s e x h i b i t e d i n t h i s h e a r i n g and t h a t

56 S t a t u t o r y D e c l a r a t i o n was fo rwarded t o t h e M i n i s t e r f o r

~ d m i n i s t r a t i v e Serv ices . From t h e r e t h e m a t t e r was i n v e s t i g a t e d

and r e s u l t e d i n t h i s hea r ing .

H r K i r k p a t r i c k gave 'sworn ev idence b e f o r e me a t

t h e h e a r i n g and was cross-examined. However, i n a d d i t i o n

t o t h a t i n a number o f documents h e has p u r p o r t e d t o gi;e

a v e r s i o n o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d between h i m s e l f

and Sergeant N inness on 1 9 t h February , 1982 i n r e l a t i o n t o

t h e a c c i d e n t .

M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s f i r s t " e r s i o n of t h a t c o n l e r s a t i o n

,- - -\l i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e

S t a t u t o r y D e c l a r a t i o n he swore on

CJ

2 3 r d February , 1982 some days a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t . Tha t

S t a t u t o r y D e c l a r a t i o n i s E x h i b i t *Dn i n t hese proceedings.

The r e l e v a n t p a r t o f t h e S t a t u t o r y D e c l a r a t i o n s t a t e s as

f o l l o w s :

l

"When	Det . S t a t i o n and t o l d me	Snr.	Sgt.	Ninness r e t u r n e d he spoke t o me	l
n e a r	t h e door ,	i .e .	main en t rance ,	o f t h e	P o l i c e

I was l u c k y t h a t . t h e damage

t o t h e Commodore was n o t t o o e x t e n s i v e and when

I asked why he s a i d I would be p a y i n g f o r i t . 1

When I s a i d t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t w a s n ' t my f a u l t

he s a i d "Oh, yes i t was", and t o o k me o u t t o

t h e c a r pa rk . When o u t s i d e he s a i d t h a t I had

r u n up t h e back o f t h e Commodore, and he wou ld

have me booked f o r speed ing and n e g l i g e n t d r i v i n g .

When	I argued	t h e f a c t s o f t h e	a c c i d e n t	w i t h h im
he m a i n t a i n e d t h a t	I was	i n t h e wrong	and	s t a r t e d

q u o t i n g what	appeared t o be p a r t s o f	t h e T r a f f i c
A c t t o me.	He was	most i n s i s t e n t t h a t he was

g o i n g t o have me booked and I wou ld have t o go

t o C o u r t u n l e s s I signed a s t a t e m e n t t h a t I was

l i a b l e f o r t h e r e p a i r o f t h e Commodore. I asked

if I c o u l d go away and t h i n k abou t it, and he s a i d t h a t

u n l e s s I s i g n e d t h e s ta temen t i m m e d i a t e l y he would

t a k e me back i n s i d e and have me charged. Even I

t hough	I	knew	t h e a c c i d e n t had n o t been my	f a u l t
I was what t o do.	f r i g h t e n e d b y what	he s a i d and	d i d n ' t	know

He k e p t on a t me, and I agreed t o

s i g n t h e s tatement . "

I n a r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n between h i m s e l f and

0etect i ;e I n s p e c t o r Whfdde t t i n t h e p resence o f 0 e t e c t i G e

A c t i n g S e n i o r S e r g e a n t Snape and h i s emp loye r ' s wife, Mrs Margaret B e l l

M r K i r k p a t r i c k	gave	a	f u r t h e r v e r s i o n	o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
c o n v e r s a t i o n :

a447. What happened then.

A. W h i l e I was g i v i n g my d e t a i l s t o t h e u n i f o r m e d

Po l iceman t h e man who was w i t h Mrs NINNESS came up t o t h e desk and w r o t e my name and address on a pad. t h a t he wanted t o see me He t h e n t o l d t h e u n i f o r m e d po l i ceman

when t h e o t h e r po l i ceman

had f i n i s h e d w i t h me.

Q48. What happened then.

A. A f t e r I had f i n i s h e d and s t a r t e d t o wa lk o u t o f t h e

P o l i c e S t a t i o n t h i s man who had t e e n w i t h

Mrs NINNESS and had taken my p a r t i c u l a r s came up t o

me i n t h e f o y c r and s a i d t h a t I was l u c k y t h a t t h e

damage t o Mrs N I N N E S S ' c a r was n o t t o o

e x t e n s i v e . I asked h im why and he s a i d because

I would be p a y i n g f o r t h e r e p a i r . I s a i d I w o n ' t

be because	i t w a s n ' t	my	f a u l t ,	t h a t she had p u l l e d
o u t and merged i n t o my	lane .	Then	he s a i d ,	No,

i f you r u n i n t o t h e r e a r i t i s yciur f a u l t .

049. What happened then.

A. I t r i e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e c i r cums tances and show

h im e x a c t l y what happened and he s a i d someth ing

about t h e T r a f f i c Ord inance say5ng you a r e

o b l i g a t e d t o be	a b l e t o s t o p on	t h e	s p o t	a t any
i n t e r s e c t i o n .

Q50. What e l s e was s a i d .

A. Then he asked me what t y p e o f i n s u r a n c e I had and

I s a i d I had T h i r d Par t y , P r o p e r t y . Then he s a i d

y o u ' l l be r i g h t , y o u ' l l be a b l e t o pay f o r t h i s

t h rough y o u r i nsu rance . I s a i d t h e excess w o u l d n ' t

go any t a l k i n g about where n e a r t h e damage. A t t h i s p o i n t , h e s t a r t e d

c h a r g i n g me w i t h n e g l i g e n t d r i v i n g

and took me o u t s i d e t o t h e r e a r o f t h e Commodore

and he s a i d i t i s o n l y about one hundred and f i f t y

t o t h r e e hundred d o l l a r s damage here.	You	can go
t o C o u r t	t o b a t t l e i t o u t f o r n e g l i g e n t	d r i v i n g

where y o u ' l l be up f o r l a w y e r s and C o u r t charges

o r i t can t h e damage end h e r e w i t h you a c c e p t i n g b l a m e . f o r

t o t h e Commodore. He may n o t have s a i d

blame, he may have s a i d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e

a c c i d e n t .

051. What happened then.

A. He j u s t s a i d i t was up t o me t o make a d e c i s i o n .

I s a i d can No he wanted a d e c i s i o n now. I go away and t h i n k i t over , b u t he sa id ,

I was t h e r e f o r abou t

t h r e e o r f o u r m i n u t e s t r y i n g t o work i t a l l ou t .

He shrugged h i s s h o u l d e r s and began t o wa lk back

i n s i d e .	I	s a i d a f t e r him,	"Looks l i k e I'm	up f o r
a b i t o f money,	I	h a v e n ' t	r e a l l y g o t	much	cho ice .

He then sa id , "Come i n s i d e and t a k e a s e a t a . I

r e t u r n e d w i t h h im t o t h e f o y e r of t h e P o l i c e S t a t i o n

w h i l e he went u p s t a i r s . He was gone f o r about

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

o f t h e s t a i r s t o come up. Then i n h i s o f f i c e he s a i d

t o me,	'S ign	t h i s and 1'11 g i v e you t h r e e quo tes
and you can p i c k o u t t h e cheapestw.	He	p o i n t e d
t o a t y p e d shee t o f paper on	t h e desk	and handed me

a b i r o .

452 . What d i d t h i s document c o n s i s t o f .

A. I saw a d m i t t i n g t h a t i t was l i a b i l i t y f o r a s t a t e m e n t i n my name

t h e a c c i d e n t , t h a t t h e r e

was a p l a c e f o r me t o s i g n and p l a c e s f o r two

w i tnesses " .

I n a f u r t h e r r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h

D e t e c t i v e I n s p e c t o r Wh idde t t i n t h e presence o f A c t i n g

S e n i o r Se rgean t Snape and h i s employer M r Pau l B e l l on

2 3 r d March,	1982	( a document	wh ich	i s E x h i b i t "F"	i n t h e
p r e s e n t	p r o c e e d i n g s )	D e t e c t i v e	Sergean t	N inness '	v e r s i o n

of	t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was	i n f a c t	p u t i n d e t a i l t o
M r K i r k p a t r i c k and	he gave	v a r y i n g answers	i n r e l a t i o n

t o t h e " a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h a t c o n " e r s a t i o n which m o s t l y t ook

3 C: t h e form o f d e n i a l s . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare h i s

s t a t e m e n t s as t o " a r i o u s p a r t s of ~ e t e c t i v e Sergeant N inness '

a l l e g e d c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e same q u e s t i o n s and answers i n

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n b y M r W i l c o x a t t h i s h e a r i n g . A t t h i s s t a g e

I do n o t p ropose t o go t o t h a t r e c o r d o f i n t e r v i e w i n t o t a l

, .

d e t a i l ,

I n ev idence b e f o r e me a t t h e h e a r i n g o f t h i s m a t t e r

M r K i r k p a t r i c k i n e x a m i n a t i o n i n c h i e f a g a i n gave a v e r s i o n o f

t h e r e l e v a n t T h a t p a r t o f t h e e" idence c o n v e r s a t i o n between he and t h e ~ e t e c t i ; e Sergeant .

o c c u r s a t pages 3a, 4 and S o f t h e

t r a n s c r i p t o f ev idence as f o l l o w s :

"What happened a f t e r t h a t ? - - - I was l e a v i n g t h e

p o l i c e s t a t i o n , and h a l f w a y t h r o u g h t h e

door, I met t h e p l a i n c l o t h e s person,

and he t o l d me I was l u c k y t h a t - - -

T r y and r e c o l l e c t i o n what t e l l t h e t r i b u n a l t o t h e b e s t o f y o u r

he a c t u a l l y s a i d i n so

many words?---He t o l d me 1-was l u c k y t h e

damage was n o t t o o e x t e n s i v e t o t h e

Commodore.

What d i d you say?---"Why?'. And he s a i d , "Because

you w i l l be p a y i n g f o r i tn. And I s a i d i t was n o t

my f a u l t , t h a t i s y o u r f a u l t u . He sa id , "You r a n up t h e r e a r of her ,

I e x p l a i n e d t h e

s i t u a t i o n , and t o t h e b e s t o f my knowledge,

t h e way i t occur red , w i t h my hands, e t c e t e r a ,

t o g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n o f what happened.

What happened next?-- -He t h e n s t a r t e d s a y i n g t h i n g s

a b o u t app roach ing i n t e r s e c t i o n laws, q u o t i n g

some s o r t o f p o l i c e s ta temen t o r whatever law

says t h a t when you approach an i n t e r s e c t i o n

you a r e supposed t c be a b l e t o s t o p on t h e spot,

he asked me about insurance, what s o r t o f i n s u r a n c e

I had. I s a i d I had insurance, He sa id , " Y o u ' l l

be	r i g h t .	Y o u ' l l	be	a b l e t o pay f o r i t th rough
y o u r	i n s u r a o c e o .	I	t o l d h im my	i n s u r a n c e would

n o t even c o v e r	t h a t and	he s a i d someth ing t o
t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e damages	were	n o t a l l t h a t
bad.

Was a l l t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n t a k i n g p l a c e i n s i d e t h e

p o l i c e s ta t i on? - - -Yes , I was mov ing towards t h e

door . I was n o t s t a n d i n g r i g h t i n one s p o t a l l

t h e t ime , He t h e n suggested we went o u t and

had a l o o k a t t h e r e a r o f t h e Commodore,

Who was i t t h a t suggested you go ou t?- - -Mr Ninness,

w h i c h I d i d n o t know b y t h a t s tage.

Sor ry , c o u l d you r e p e a t tha t?- - -Which I d i d n o t know

b y t h a t s tage.

So t h i s p e r s o n i n p l a i n c l o t h e s - - -?---Yes, We -

went o u t i n t h e c a r p a r k and s t o o d t o t h e r e a r

o f t h e Commodore. .He ment ioned c h a r g i n g me

w i t h n e g l i g e n t d r i v i n g as I was n o t a b l e t o

s t o p a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , r u n n i n g i n t o her .

Can you t r y t o remember what he s a i d t o you, t o t h e

b e s t o f y o u r r e c o l l e c t i o n ? A re t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r

words you can remember h im s a y i n g t o you, even

if you canno t remember i t a l l ? - - - S o m e t h i n g t o

t h e e f f e c t o f c h a r g i n g me w i t h n e g l i g e n t d r i v i n g ,

w h i l e we	were	s t a n d i n g a t t h e	r e a r o f t h e
Commodore,	and sa id ,	nIf you d o n ' t	accep t

l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e damage you c o u l d be charged

w i t h n e g l i g e n t	d r i v i n g u n l e s s	i t can	be	s e t t l e d
r i g h t nowU.

What d i d you s a y ? - - - I asked i f I c o u l d go away and

t h i n k about i t f o r a w h i l e , and he s a i d t o me,

no, he wanted an answer r i g h t a t t h a t t ime .

What d i d you say t o t h a t ? - - - I t h o u g h t about i t f o r

a w h i l e and I s a i d t o him, "It l o o k s l i k e I ' m

up f o r a b i t o f money. I h a v e n ' t g o t much

c h o i c e i n t h e m a t t e r n . And so he went away and

he t o l d me t o s i t down a t t h e f o o t o f t h e

s t a i r s . He went u p s t a i r s .

S o r r y , you missed a l i n k t h e r e . You were i n t h e c a r

park . Where d i d you go f rom t h e c a r p a r k ? - - -

Back	i n s i d e t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n ,	where	I	s a t down
a g a i n where	I was	s i t t i n g b e f o r e when	I	f i l l e d

o u t t h e and he c a l l e d me	a c c i d e n t r e p o r t .	He	went	u p s t a i r s .	I
was	s i t t i n g t h e r e	f o r	about	10 o r	15 m i n u t e s

u p s t a i r s and t h e n showed me a

t y p e d o u t s ta tement .

What happened i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t s ta tement?- - -He

sa id , " 1 w i l l g e t t h r e e quotes f o r you and we

w i l l m a i l i t t o you. You can p i c k o u t t h e

cheapes t one". So I s i g n e d t b e s t a t e m e n t and

he w i t n e s s e d it. He c a l l e d o v e r a n o t h e r - - -

--Do you remember what he s a i d a f t e r you had s i g n e d

t h e s ta temen t? I t h i n k you s a i d he w i t n e s s e d

t h e	s ta tement .	D i d	anybody	e l s e w i t n e s s	t h e
s tatement?-- -Yes. .	He	c a l l e d	o v e r	a n o t h e r	p e r s o n

who was s i t t i n g o v e r t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e room.

He	c a l l e d them o v e r	t o ask	t h e n	i f t h e y wou ld
w i t n e s s	t h e	s t a t e m e n t	f o r	him.

Do you remember what he s a i d about t h e person?-- -

J u s t	someth ing	t o t h e	e f f e c t ,	"Cou ld	y o u - p l e a s e
j u s t come	o v e r	and w i t n e s s	t h i s ? "	He	n e v e r

r e a l l y s a i d a n y t h i n g e l s e a t a l l . "

Sergean N inness ga;e sworn e h d e n c e as t o h i s i e r s i o n

o f t h e r e l e v a n t con;ersat ion a t pages 42 t o 45 inc1usi;e o f

t h e t r a n s c r i p t . The r e l e i a n t p a r t o f t h a t e h d e n c e i n

e x a m i n a t i o n i n c h i e f i s as f o l l o w s :

What	d i d you	s a y ? - - - I	i n t r o d u c e d m y s e l f	as	R ick
Ninness.
You	say you	i n t r o d u c e d y o u r s e l f	as	R i c k	Ninness.

Can you j u s t say what you s a i d , i f you remember?

---To t h e b e s t o f my knowledge I sa id , " I ' m

R i c k Ninness. I ' m a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f my

b r o t h e r , Doug Ninness, who i s t h e owner o f t h e

mo to r And d i d you ask h i n t o come somewhere w i t h you? v e h i c l e u .

---Yes. I t h e n asked h im t o come o u t i n f r o n t

o f t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n .

D i d you n o t i c e o u t t h e r e t h e damage t o t b e Hoiden

Commodore	wh ich	was	y o u r	b r o t h e r ' s	v e h i c l e ?
---Yes, I	d i d .

D i d you ask M r K i r k p a t r i c k whe the r he had s u s t a i n e d

any i n j u r y i n t h e acc iden t? - - -Yes , I b e l i e v e

I d i d .

Uha t d i d he say?---No, he t o l d me he had n o t r e c e i v e d

any i n j u r y .

D i d you a s k . h i m how much damage had been caused?

---Yes.

So r ry , t o h i s v e h i c l e . And what d i d he say?---He

t o l d m e - t h a t he had r e c e i v e d f r o n t end damage

t o h i s v e h i c l e which was n o t e x t e n s i v e .

I t h i n k you d i d you?---Yes, g o t some fo rmal p a r t i c u l a r s f rom him,

I d i d .

By t h e way, i n p l a i n c lo thes?- - -Yes . a l l t h i s t i m e of c o u r s e you were dressed

I t h i n k a t no s t a t e d i d you m e n t i o n t o h i m t h a t you

were a p o l i c e o f f i c e r l - - - I d i d no t .

l

Even	i n y o u r	i n t r o d u c t i o n ? - - - I	d i d no t .	l
I
l
I	t h f n k he t o l d you	t h a t he was	d o i n g a message	I

f o r h i s boss a t t h e t i m e o f t h e acc ident?-- -Yes,

he d i d .

i	I
I
I
i

I

I

... /14.

l

l

And you asked h i m h o w . t h e a c c i d e n t happened and

he gave you h i s v e r s i o n o f how	i t happened?
---He	d i d .

By r e f e r e n c e t o y o u r n o t e s c o u l d you j u s t t e l l H i s

Worship what you asked M r K i r k p a t r i c k and what

he answered t o y o u - i n response?- - - I s a i d , "What

speed were you t r a v e l l i n g a t as you approached

t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n ? " He sa id , "I am n o t su reM,

I said , Newcas t l e S t r e e t "As you approached t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f

and B a r r i e r S t r e e t d i d you see

t h e Commodore wh ich you c o l l i d e d w i t h ? "

He s a i d , t o t h e r i g h t l a n e w . "Yes. I t was c r o s s i n g f r o m t h e l e f t

I said, "How f a r back were

you a t t h i s s t a g e ? " He sa id , "I am n o t sure, b u t

I t h o u g h t i t was g o i n g t o keep g o i n g on

Newcast le S t r e e t " . I said, 'D id you see e i t h e r

t h e r i g h t o r l e f t i n d i c a t o r were on t h e

Commodore sedan?" Hs sa id , "The r i g h t one was

on*.	I	sa id ,	"What	d i d you t h i n k i t meant
b y t h e	r i g h t hand	i n d i c a t o r b e i n g on?"	He	s a i d
"I	t h o u g h t she was	j u s t chang ing l anesn .	I	sa id ,
" D i d you r e a r o f t h e Commodore?"	a p p l y y o u r	b rakes b e f o r e	you	h i t t h e

He s a i d , "Yes".

I sa id , t h e roadway " D i d y o u r v e h i c l e l e a v e s k i d marks on

i n Newcas t l e S t r e e t ? " He sa id ,

*Yesn, I s a i d , "Do you f e e l t h e s e sk idmarks

i n d i c a t e t h a t you were exceed ing t h e speed l i m i t

i n Newcas t l e S t r e e t ? " He said, "Yes". I sa id ,

"Do	you f e e l	t h a t you were t r a v e l l i n g t o o f a s t
t o a v o i d a	c o l l i s i o n w i t h t h e	r e a r o f t h e

C o m m o d ~ r e ? ~ He s a i d , "Yes*, I ' s a i d , "Was

any t r a f f i c i n t h e l e f t hand l a n e as you

approached t h e r e a r of t h e c a r you c o l l i d e d

w i t h ? " He s a i d , '#No, I d j d n o t see any*.

I sa id , "Why d i d n ' t you t a k e e v a s i v e a c t i o n

by p u l l i n g i n t o t h e l e f t l ane?" He sa id ,

"1 t h o u g h t I c o u l d p k l l up i n t i m e b u t she was

g o i n g t o o s low". I said , "Do you know t h a t you

s h o u l d approach an i n t e r s e c t i o n s l o w enough

t h a t i f a dangerous	s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s you	a r e
a b l e t o p u l l up p r i o r t o	a c o l l i s i ~ n ? ~ ,	He

s a i d , "Yes, I suppose soa. I sa id , "Do you f e e l

t h e speed you were t r a v e l l i n g a t was s a f e enough

c o n s i d e r i n g	you	were	approach ing	an	i n t e r s e c t i o n
on y o u r r i g h t ? "	He sa id ,	"I	suppose I	was	g o t n g

a b i t f a s t 8 @ . I s a i d , "Do you f e e l t h a t t h e l a d y

who was i n any way?" d r i v i n g t h e Holden caused t h e a c c i d e n t

He s a i d , nOnly because whe was

g o i n g t o o s l o w mak ing t h e r i g h t hand t u r n u .

I sa id , "What do you f e e l was t h e main

c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r of t h e a c c i d e n t ? " We sa id ,

"1 suppose I was g o i n g a b i t t o o f a s t 1 ' . I s a i d ,

"Do you f o r t h e r e p a i r s of accep t t h e f a c t t h a t you a r e r e s p o n s i b l e

t h e Ho lden?" He sa id , "YesN.

I sa id , "Do you know any p a n e l b e a t e r s ? " He

s a i d , "No, n o t r e a l l y . How much damage do you

t h i n k t h e r e - i s ? ' I said , "I c a n ' t say how much

wou ld be i nvo l ved . , I t m i g h t b e . a c o u p l e o f

hundred, i t m i g h t be a b i t more. I d o n ' t

know".	He sa id ,	" W i l l	I	have t o go	t o C o u r t
about t h i s ? "	I	sa id ,	"As I	have t o l d you,	i t

w i l l be up t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g u n i f o r m e d

po l i ceman b u t c i v i l l y I f e e l t h e r e w i l l be

a c t i o n t a k e n t o pay f o r damages t o t h e

Holden". I said , "Are you p r e p z r e d t o s i g n

a s t a t e m e n t t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t you a r e p r e p a r e d

t o a c c e p t l i a b i l i t y f o r damages caused t o t h e

Ho lden?" He sa id , "YesU. I s a i d , " I n t h a t

s t a t e m e n t I w i l l make i t t h a t you a r e s u p p l i e d

w i t h t h r e e independant p a n e l b e a t e r quo tes wh ich

e n t i t l e s you	t o y o u r	q u c t e s	p r i o r t o t h e
r e p a i r s b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t H .	Do	you	agree t o

t h i s ? ' He sa id , 'YesU. I sa id , " J u s t w a i t

h e r e o r you can come i n and w a i t i n t h e f o y e r

w h i l e I go u p s t a i r s and t y p e o u t a s h o r t s t a t e m e n t

t o t h e	e f f e c t t h a t you	a r e p r e p a r e d	t o a c c e p t
l i a b i l i t y a .	I	t h e n went	u p s t a i r s t o t h e C I B

and t y p e d o u t a s h o r t s t a t e m e n t i n r e l a t i o n

t o l i a b i l i t y b e i n g accepted	b y M r K i r k p a t r i c k
i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e	acc iden t . "

I n r e s p e c t of most o f h i s ev idence i n c h i e f as

t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n Sergeant Ninness ga;e e v i d e n c e b y

r e f e r e n c e t o h a n d w r i t t e n n o t e s t h a t he s t a t e d he p r e p a r e d

a s h o r t t i m e a f t e r t h e conGersa t i on was comp le ted i n an

e f f o r t t o r e c o r d them i n case h i s b r o t h e r may need them

i n any c i i i l a c t i o n . I n r e s p e c t t o h i s " e r s i o n o f t h e

con;ersat ion gi;en i n t h e e x a m i n a t i o n i n c h i e f I formed

t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e Sergeant was c o m p l e t e l y unshaken i n

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n as t o t h a t v e r s i o n o f events . F u r t h e r ,

i n subs tance t h a t v e r s i o n o f t h e con;ersat ion i s i d e n t i c a l

w i t h t h e S e r g e a n t ' s w r i t t e n v e r s i o n o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n

c o n t a i n e d i n h i s answer t o a s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i v e b y t h e

i n ; e s t i g a t i n g ~ e t e c t i l t I n s p e c t o r Wh idde t t . T h a t document

i s E x h i b i t "O t8 i n t h e p r e s e n t p roceed ings and t h e r e i s

no need t o go t o i t i n d e t a i l b u t t h e r e l e v a n t p a r t s

of t h e document t h a t r e l a t e t o t h e s p e c i f i c c o n v e r s a t i o n

a r e pa rag raphs 9-14 i n c l u s i v e on pages 3-6.

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

. .

charges r e q u i r e t h e Commissioner t o p r o v e t h a t b y means

o f i n t i m i d a t i o n t h e Sergeant d i d i nduce M r K i r k p a t r i c k

t o s i g n t h e w r i t t e n s ta temen t E x h i b i t "B", a s ta temen t

he wou ld n o t o f o t h e r w i s e s igned. The v e r b n in t i r n ida te l t

i s d e f i n e d i n t h e Conc ise Oxford D i c t i o n a r y as;

" t o i n s p i r e w i t h f e a r e s p e c i a l l y i n o r d e r t o i n f l u e n c e

conductn .	I n v iew	o f	t h e	s e r i o u s	n a t u r e	and	c o n t e x t
o f	t h e	p r e s e n t	o f f e n c e s	t h e Commissioner	must	pro;e	t h a t

.A 6 t h e Sergean t e i t h e r b y consc ious s ta temen t o r conduct

d e l i b e r a t e l y	s o u g h t	t o o i e r b e a r	t h e mind	and	d e c i s i o n
of	M r K i r k p a t r i c k w i t h	a	v iew	of	i n d u c i n g h im t o s i g n
t h e	s t a t e m e n t	a d m i t t i n g	l i a b i l i t y and	f u r t h e r	t h a t e x c e p t

f o r t h a t a c t o f i n t i m i d a t i o n M r K i r k p a t r i c k wou ld n o t ha;e

s i g n e d such a s ta temen t . I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e submiss ion

." made on b e h a l f o f t h e Commissioner b y Miss Honcope t h a t

i n t i m i d a t i o n c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d if M r K i r k p a t r i c k

m i s i n t e r p r e t e d	o r w r o n g l y	i m p l i e d t h a t	Sergeant	Ninness
wou ld	eharge	h i m w i t h n e g l i g e n t	d r i v i n g i f he	d i d n o t

j a d m i t l i a b i l i t y and i f he d i d n o t s i g n t h e r e q u i s i t e

s t a t e m e n t a d m i t t i n g l i a b i l i t y , w i t h o u t i t b e i n g shown

go	!$	t h a t	t h e	Sergean t	had	d e l i b e r a t e l y	i n t e n d e d	t h a t	h i s conduc t
X- ?i

7-4	o r	s t a t e m e n t	i n t i m i d a t e	M r K i r k p a t r i c k .
^ "C

The manner i n which t h e p a r t i c u l a r s ha;e been

q+l,

"-	I.	f ramed	r e q u i r e	t h e	C o i m i s s i o n e r	t o p rove	t h a t	t h e
* S

i n t i m i d a t i o n had t h e e f f e c t of caus ing M r K i r k p a t r i c k t o

s i g n t h e s t a t e m e n t and f u r t h e r t h a t except f o r such

intimidation no such statement would have been signed

by him.

It would not be sufficient for it to be pro;ed

liability. The charge alleges that the intimidation was
operative and inducing Mr Kirkpatrick at the time when he
signed the statement admitting liability, Mr Kirkpatrick's
e;idence as to when and in what context in the con;ersation
Sergeant Ninness made the alleged intimidation is equivocal.
In his initial "ersion of eients contained in the Statutory

that Mr Kirkpatrick was intimidated into orally admitting alleged intimidation was made directly at the time when

he was required to sign the statement. This iersion

page 18 of the transcript and cross examination that no such intimidation was made directly in conjunction with a statement or request by the Sergeant that he sign a statement admitting liability. Putting aside the problems for Mr Kirkpatrick's credit in such a conflict, the Commissioner may still be able to establish the charge if he could show that during the oral conversation the alleged intimidation was made and caused Mr Kirkpatrick t o orally admit liability and such intimidation continued t o effect and induce Mr Kirkpatrick right up until the time that he in fact .signed the statement admitting liability.	howeier is in complete conflict with his statement at o f the statement, need not be simultaneous but the
intimidation must still be ha;ing its effect on the mind
and will of Mr Kirkpatrick.	O f course, the Commissioner

must additionally pro;e that the only reason that Mr Kirkpatrick signed the statement was the effect of the alleged intimidation.

A number o f s p e c i f i c m a t t e r s need t o be c o n s i d e r e d

as	t o M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s	c r e d i t ,	m o t i v a t i o n ,	r e c o l l e c t i o n
and	r e l i a b i l i t y i n r e s p e c t	t o t h e	c o n t e n t s o f	t h e

d i s p u t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n .

1. I t i s obv ious from h i s v e r y f i r s t v e r s i o n

o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e S t a t u t o r y

D e c l a r a t i o n of	2 3 r d February ,	1982	t h a t
M r K i r k p a t r i c k	d i d n o t	a t t e m p t	t o r e c a l l

o r r e c o r d t h e e x a c t words o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n .

M r K i r k p a t r i c k has gi;en. a number o f i a r y i n g

v e r s i o n s	of	t h e	same	c o n v e r s a t i o n .
S e n i o r	Cons tab le Van	Akker	has	s t a t e d i n
ev idence	t h a t	M r K i r k p a t r i c k	a d m i t t e d	t h a t
he	c o l l i d e d w i t h	t h e	r e a r o f t h e	o t h e r

v e h i c l e as i t was p r e p a r i n g t o make a r i g h t

hand t u r n . The S e n i o r Cons tab le f u r t h e r

i n d i c a t e d t h a t he p u t Mrs N inness ' v e r s i o n

t o M r K i r k p a t r i c k and t h a t M r K i r k p a t r i c k

b a s i c a l l y agreed w i t h t h a t v e r s i o n e x c e p t

t h a t he	d i s p u t e d t h a t he was	t r a v e l l i n g a t
h i g h speed.	I	have no reason t o doub t t h e

v e r a c i t y o r	accu racy	of	S e n i o r	Cons tab le
Van	A k k e r t s ev idence	and	i t means	t h a t .

s u b s t a n t i a l l y M r K i r k p a t r i c k bad made an

admiss ion o f f a c t t h a t may g i v e r i s e t o

l i a b i l i t y b e f o r e any c o n v e r s a t i o n between

he and Sergeant Ninness had occur red .

F u r t h e r i t was suggested i n t h e second

r e c o r d o f i n t e r v i e w d a t e d 2 3 r d March, 1982

t h a t M r K i r k p a t r i c k had conceded t o

Sergeant-McEvoy t h a t he had been a b l e t o

p u t h i s v e r s i o n . o f t h e a c c i d e n t t o

S e n i o r Cons tab le Van Akker. A l though

h i s employer, Pau l B e l l , who was p r e s e n t

d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w made an a t t e m p t t o

e x p l a i n away t h a t concession. (See

page	5	Q u e s t i o n 47	o f t h a t	r e c o r d o f .
i n t e r v i e w . )	A l l o f	t hese	m a t t e r s	g i v e

r i s e t o i n f e r e n c e t h a t perhaps M r K i r k p a t r i c k

may	have made	some	s u b s t a n t i a l	concess jons
of	f a c t	and	l i a b i l i t y p r i o r t o any	c o n v e r s a t i o n

w i t h Sergeant Ninness.

4 . Under c ross -examina t i on M r K i r k p a t r i c k

v a c i l l a t e d when Sergeant N inness ' v e r s i o n

o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was p u t t o him. I n

many areas he changed h i s g round between

p o s i t i v e d e n i a l , u n c e r t a i n t y and c l t i m a t e l y

on some occas ions a concess ion t h a t

v a r i o u s	s ta temen ts may	have been	made
b y e i t h e r p a r t y .	The	most	c r i t i c a l

c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e case r e v o l v e s around

whe the r Sergeant Ninness s p e c i f i c a l l y

s t a t e d t h a t i f M r K i r k p a t r i c k d i d n o t

a d m i t	l i a b i l i t y t h e	Sergeant	wou ld	cha rge
o r	a r r a n g e	t o - h a v e h im	charged	w i t h
n e g l i g e n t	d r i v i n g .	M r	K i v k p a t r i c k	c o u l d
n o t r e c a l l	t h e	e x a c t words	t h e	Sergeant

used a t t h i s p o i n t b u t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e

Sergean t " i m p l i e d " such a t h i n g b u t t h e n

s t a t e d t h a t such words were i n f a c t used

(see c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n pages 16, 17 and 18).

M r K i r k p a t r i c k conceded (page 16) t h a t he

may have asked i f he wou ld have t o go t o .

C o u r t and conceded Sergeant N inness may have

r e p l i e d "as I have t o l d you, i t w i l l be up

t o t h e - i n v e s t i g a t i o n u n i f o r m e d pol iceman,

b u t c i v i l l y , I f e e l t h e r e w i l l be a c t i o n t a k e n

t o pay f o r damages t o t h e Holden. M r K i r k p a t r i c k

- conceded t h a t t h e Sergeant d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y

s t a t e t h a t he would cha rge h im ( K i r k p a t r i c k )

~ i t h n e g l i g e n t d r i v i n g i f he d i d n o t s i g n t h e

s t a t e m e n t	a d m i t t i n g l i a b i l i t y ( see	page	18).
M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s	c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n	on	t h i s

i s s u e - w a s n o t c o n v i n c i n g and i n p l a c e s o u t r i g h t

e v a s i v e and i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h h i s

i n i t i a l s ta temen t i n t h e S t a t u t o r y D e c l a r a t i o n

( see above) on t h i s i s s u e . These a r e o n l y

a few i s o l a t e d examples i n t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n

o f M r K i r k p a t r i c k . Even a l l o w i n g f o r h i s age

and - i n e x p e r i e n c e as a w i t n e s s I have g rave

r e s e r v a t i o n s about h i s per fo rmance under

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n as t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h i s

d i s p u t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n .

5. I t appears t h e c o m p l a i n t was made a t t h e

i n s t i g a t i o n and w i t h t h e encouragement o f

M r K i r k p a t r i c k ' s - e m p l o y e r s	(see	page	20).
F u r t h e r ,	I observed	Mrs	B e l l t o be c l e a r l y

p r o m p t i n g t h e w i t n e s s as t o an answer i n

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n	(see	t h e	i n c i d e n t	r e c o r d e d
a t pages	20	and	21 o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t ) .	As

Mr Kirkpatrick was obviously in the course
of bis employment although driving his own-
private vehicle there is some obvious motive
for an employer in these circumstances to be
concerned about a statement by Mr Kirkpatrick

admitting liability.

6 .	himself as Rick Ninness and stated that he was acting on his brother's behalf and did not mention at that stage that he was a police officer, Mr Kirkpatrick denies that this occurred, However, if Mr Kirkpatrick is accurate it is indeed strange why Mr Kirkpatrick would continue to be subjected to what he says was an intimidation by a person who he definitely didn't know was a police officer and a person whom if he was a police officer had no obvious interest in what was a minor road traffic accident. This is a critical	Sergeant Ninness has sworn that he introduced relative youth and inexperience.
I am aware of the necessity for a Court or Tribunal

to be careful in comparing the weight of an experienced

nprofessional~ police witness with that of a young

inexperienced lay witness (see the comments in this

connection of Fox J , in Bierkowski - v - Pearson	1971
18FLR 110).

After carefully considering the evidence, the

Commissioner falls to satisfy me on the relevant onus o f

proof (see abole) that Mr Kirkpatrick's "ersion of the

conversation is a reliable, accurate one, Specifically

I cannot be satisfied Sergeant Ninness stated that if

M r Kirkpatrick failed to make an admission of liability

for the accident either orally or in writing he (Ninness)

would charge or arrange to hale him charged with negligent

dri;ing. I am not satisfied that such a clear and

c o n s c i o u s t h r e a t occur red . F o r reasons I have i n d i c a t e d

above , i t does n o t a s s i s t t h e Commissioner t o e s t a b l i s h

t h a t M r K i r k p a t r i c k t r u t h f u l l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s i t u a t i o n

t o t h e c o n t r a r y . I am n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e r e was any

i n t i m i d a t i o n w i t h i n t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e word. I f

t h e Commissioner does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e charges must

f a i l on t h e f a c t s .

M r W i l cox on beha l f of Sergeant N inness ad;anced

a number o f l e g a l arguments i n r e s p e c t o f t h e charges and

p a r t i c u l a r s	b rough t .	I n r e s p e c t	o f	t h e	charge	p u r s u a n t
t o pa rag raph	1 8 ( 1 ) ( d )	he	s u b m i t t e d	t h a t	t h e	Commissioner

has a l l e g e d t h e a c t t o have o c c u r r e d i n t h e S e r g e a n t ' s

o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y and consequen t l y must p r o v e same. T h i s

p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n c e can	be commi t ted e i t h e r	i n a member's
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y o r o the rw ise .	If	t h e Commissioner seeks

t o cha rge and a l l e g e o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y t h a t i s an e lement

t h a t must be proved. I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case f o r t h e

reasons advanced b y M r U t l c o x a t pages 63-65 o f t h e

t r a n s c r i p t i n my i i e w i t i s q u i t e o b v i o u s t h a t t h e Commissioner

c a n n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e a c t i o n s o f Sergeant N inness c o n c e r n i n g

M r K i r k p a t r i c k can	i n any way	come	w i t h i n t h e c a t e g o r y of
h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y .	I	know	o f n o d i r e c t a u t h o r i t y

d e f i n i n g t h e t e r m t h a t would a s s i s t . I make t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n

p u r e l y upon	t h e p l a i n language	o f t h e	r e g u l a t i o n .	The
mere	f a c t t h a t a	member	o f t h e P o l i c e F o r c e does	someth ing

h i s h o u r s o f d u t y does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y mean t h a t t h a t a c t

wou ld be c a t e g o r i s e d as b e i n g i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y .

P u t t i n g a s i d e t h e f a c t u a l d e c i s i o n I have made i n t h i s

case, t h e cha rge p u r s u a n t t o paragraph 1 8 ( l ) ( d ) wou ld ha;e

f a i l e d i n any e v e n t as t h e Comnissioner wou ld n o t h a ~ e e s t a b l i s h e d

t h a t	t h e	a c t s	compla ined	o f o c c u r r e d	i n t h e o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y
o f t h e member	i n q u e s t i o n .	No	a p p l i c a t i o n was	made	b y

Counsel f o r t h e Commissioner t o make any amendment t o

t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e charge.

I n r e s p e c t of t h e cha rge p u r s u a n t t o

p a r a g r a p h 1 8 ( 1 ) ( g ) of t h e R e g u l a t i o n s , M r W i l cox s u b m i t t e d

t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h e e lement o f " o f f i c i a l

capac i t y i8	t o a l s o be	r e q u i r e d t o be	pro;ed	f o r an	o f f e n c e
under t h i s paragraph.	I	d i s a g r e e	w i t h	t h a t	submiss ion.

I n o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e R e g u l a t i o n s where of fences a r e c r e a t e d

q u a l i f y i n g words	o r e lements	such	as	" i n t h e cou rse o f
h i s du tya8 , " a t	a l l t imesa8, " d u r i n g	h i s hou rs	of	dutyn,

" i n t h e performance o f h i s d u t i e s u , " e i t h e r i n h i s o f f i c i a l

c a p a c i t y o r o t h e r w i s e " a r e used i n r e s p e c t o f t h o s e

s p e c i f i c o f fences . I t seems t o me t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

d i d n o t i n t e n d such a r e s t r i c t i o n t o e x i s t i n r e s p e c t o f

t h e o f f e n c e	under	pa rag raph	l 8 ( l ) ( g )	o f t h e	R e g u l a t i o n s
b u t r a t h e r an	o f f e n c e	under	t h a t S e c t i o n would	a p p l y	t o

a member	o f t h e P o l i c e F o r c e a t a l l t i m e s	t h a t he remained
a member	o f t h e P o l i c e Force.

The o f f e n c e under pa rag raph 1 8 ( 1 ) ( g ) can occur

where t h e member a c t s i n a manner t h a t b r i n g s d i s c r e d i t t o

t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 o r where

t h e member a c t s i n a manner t h a t i s l i k e l y t o b r i n g d i s c r e d i t

t o t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 . In

t h i s case t h e Commissioner has e l e c t e d t o cha rge

S e r g e a n t Ninness w i t h a c t i n g i n a manner t h a t b r i n g s

d i s c r e d i t t o t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 .

No a p p l i c a t i o n t o amend t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e charge was

made b y Counsel f o r t h e Commissioner. M r W i l cox s u b m i t t e d

t h a t t h e T r i b u n a l would need t o ha"e a c t u a l e;idencc t h a t

t h e a l l e g e d conduct	o f Sergeant	Ninness	i n h i s d e a l i n g s
w i t h M r K i r k p a t r i c k	d i d a c t u a l l y	b r i n g d i s c r e d i t	t o t h e

r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 . W h i l s t

such ev idence may be admissab le I am n o t o f t h e v iew

t h a t such ev idence i s n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d . The T r i b u n a l

i n my	v iew	i s e n t i t l e d i n such	a case t o draw	i n f e r e n c e s
as	t o t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t	o f such	a l l e g e d conduc t	and

r e a c h a d e c i s l o n on t h e r e l e v a n t onus o f p r o o f as t o

whether such conduc t wou ld i n f a c t b r i n o d i s c r e d i t t o t h e

r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 . I t goes w i t h o u t

s a y i n g t h a t i f t h e Commissioner had charged conduct

" l i k e l y t o b r i n g d i s c r e d i t t o t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f 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 * t h e t a s k o f p r o v i n g such an

o f f e n c e wou ld i ndeed be an e a s i e r one. I r e j e c t M r W i l c o x

submiss ion t h a t t h e charge p u r s u a n t t o t h i s paragraph wou ld

be d i s m i s s e d on t h o s e grounds.

A l t h o u g h t h e two cha rges b r o u g h t b y t h e Commissioner

i n t h i s case a r e under d i f f e r e n t paragraphs t h e p a r t i c u l a r s

r e q u i r e d . t o be pro;ed a r e i n f a c t i d e n t i c a l . Consequent ly ,

t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t I ha;e made i n t h i s case as t o t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s a r e f a t a l t o t h e success of b o t h charges.

I d i s m i s s b o t h charges a g a i n s t Sergeant Ninness.

I o r d e r t h a t t h e Commissioner pay t h e c o s t s o f and i n c i d e n t a l

t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n c u r r e d b y Sergeant Ninness. I t i s hoped

t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w i l l b e a b l e t o r e a c h agreement on t h e

quantum and q u e s t i o n o f c o s t s b u t f a i l i n g such agreement

I g i v e l i b e r t y t o a p p l y i n r e s p e c t o f cos ts , i