DC v Commissioner of Police

In the case of DC v Commissioner of Police, the appellant, a long-serving member of the South Australian Police (SAPOL), appealed against a decision made by the Police Commissioner under the Police Complaints and Discipline Act. The dispute arose from an incident that occurred on 14 September 2020, where the appellant, a Sergeant, was alleged to have behaved inappropriately towards a female constable during a social event. Following a formal complaint, the appellant was served with a Notice of Allegation, alleging that he had disobeyed a lawful order by engaging in conduct that made the complainant feel uncomfortable, thereby contravening the General Order on Human Resource Management, Diversity and Inclusion. The appellant was subsequently interviewed by officers from the Diversity and Inclusion Branch and faced potential penalties ranging from counselling to suspension or reduction in rank.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the decision made by the Police Commissioner was lawful, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed as it was based on an incorrect understanding of the General Order and the respectful behaviour guidelines. He contended that his actions did not contravene these provisions and that the Commissioner had erred in determining that they did. The appellant also claimed that the Commissioner had failed to adequately consider the context of the social event and the subjective nature of the complainant’s feelings of discomfort.

The court, in considering the appeal, examined the evidence presented and the reasoning behind the Commissioner’s decision. It was found that the Commissioner had carefully considered the context and the specific provisions of the General Order. The court held that the Commissioner’s decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. It concluded that the Commissioner had correctly interpreted the General Order and that the appellant's actions did indeed constitute a breach of the respectful behaviour guidelines. The court found no fault with the Commissioner’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

As a result of the court’s decision, the Commissioner’s decision to impose a penalty on the appellant was upheld. The appellant was required to undergo counselling, education, and training, and received an unrecorded reprimand. The court’s ruling affirmed the Commissioner’s authority to address misconduct within SAPOL and underscored the importance of adherence to the General Order on Human Resource Management, Diversity and Inclusion.