Hearn v Assistant Commissioner Carroll
[2012] QCAT 412
•4 September 2012
| CITATION: | Hearn v Assistant Commissioner Carroll [2012] QCAT 412 |
| PARTIES: | Logan Hearn |
| v | |
| Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR001-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 23 July 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Margaret McLennan, Member Jeremy Gordon, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 4 September 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision is confirmed. 2. The following is subject to non-publication: a) the identity, other than the applicant and the respondent, of the complainant and two officers involved in the arrest of the complainant at the Treasury Casino on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material; b) police officers connected with the detention of the complainant at the Brisbane watch house on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material; c) the images depicted on all CCTV footage from both the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house ; and d) the photographs (or copies) depicting the face and injuries of the complainant. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minimum force – excessive force – disciplinary reprimand Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 66 Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990, s 9(1)(f) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Troy Schmidt instructed by the Office of Queensland Police Union Solicitor |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Michael Nicolson instructed by the Queensland Police Service Solicitor |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (tribunal) stamped as lodged[1] on 3 January 2012 to review a decision made on 14 December 2011 by Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll (the respondent). It was in relation to a disciplinary hearing which commenced 22 October 2010 and concluded on 14 December 2011.
[1] Lodged electronically on 23 December 2011.
Constable Logan Hearn (applicant, Hearn) was charged as follows:
“Matter 1
That on the 17th day of February 2008 at Brisbane your conduct was improper in that you:
(a) used excessive force against GM.
[Section 1.4 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (‘PSAA’), section 9(1)(f) Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (‘PS(D)R’)]
Further and better particulars:
Investigations have established that at approximately 2.30am on 17 February 2008 in the vicinity of the Treasury Casino, George Street, Brisbane you assisted in the arrest of GM who was intoxicated.
During the process you used excessive force when you pushed GM’s head into the bonnet of the police vehicle.
GM[2] received a broken nose due to the force you used against her.”
[2] Hereinafter referred to as the complainant.
The respondent was not satisfied that the applicant’s actions or use of force resulted in the complainant’s nose being broken and was satisfied that a factor contributing to the injury were the glasses worn by the complainant. The respondent was satisfied that the force used by the applicant in controlling the complainant was excessive; that the use of force model provided other options and that as a result of the excessive force, the complainant’s head hit the bonnet of the police vehicle resulting in a flesh wound to the side of her nose.
The respondent found the charge to be substantiated. Having regard to the purpose of discipline, the maintenance of public confidence in police officers and the Queensland Police Service (QPS), the maintenance of proper standards of conduct for police officers and general deterrence principles, the respondent ordered that the appropriate sanction was a reprimand.
Jurisdiction
The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is contained in sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). The enabling Act referred to in section 17 of the QCAT Act is, in this matter, the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (CM Act) in particular section 219G and section 219H which set out the process relating to reviewable decisions. Subsection 219H(1) provides that a review of a reviewable decision is by way of rehearing on the evidence (original evidence) given in the proceeding before the original decision-maker.
The evidence before this tribunal consists of the material originally placed before the respondent and the additional written submissions to the tribunal. Included in the material is CCTV footage of the relevant event outside the Treasury Casino[3], CCTV footage from the Brisbane watch house, an audio tape and colour photographs[4]. This is not an appeal in the strict sense such as one to which the principles of House v The King[5] apply.[6] The tribunal is mindful that the review involves a fresh hearing[7] on the merits and that subsection 20(1) of the QCAT Act provides:
“the purpose of the review of a reviewable decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.”
It is accepted that, there is no relevant inconsistency between sections 219G and 219H of the empowering Act and sections 17-20 of the QCAT Act so the statutory changes since Aldrich v Ross[8] (Aldrich) have the effect of requiring a similar approach to be taken.[9] The principles stated in Aldrich by Thomas JA (as he then was) continue to apply in the statutory regime contained in the QCAT Act:
“... I consider that the Misconduct Tribunal is required to make its own decision on the available evidence rather than merely to determine the correctness of the original decision in the limited manner permitted by an appeal in the strict sense against the exercise of a discretion. ...
It would be appropriate for the Misconduct Tribunal in making up its own mind to give considerable weight to the view of the original decision-maker who might be thought to have particular expertise in the managerial requirements of the police force.”[10]
[3]Exhibit 1: a tribunal hearing room copy of this file CCTV footage was provided by the Applicant and played during the hearing.
[4]Exhibit 3(a): colour copy of black and white photograph at file Part B page 126; Exhibit 3(b): colour copy of black and white photograph at file Part B page 125 – watch house I.D photograph; Exhibit 4: two colour photos taken of the complainant on 18 February 2008 copies of file black and white photographs unpaginated on tribunal file.
[5](1936) 55 CLR 499.
[6]Compton v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2010] QCAT 384 at 3.
[7]QCAT Act, section 20(2).
[8][2001] 2 Qd R 235.
[9]Crime & Misconduct Commission v Deputy Commissioner Queensland Police Service & Chapman [2010] QCAT 564 at 3.
[10]At 257.
The tribunal will make its own decision on the evidence before it with due acknowledgement to the original decision-maker.[11] The tribunal is:
“obliged to exercise an independent judgment, but having regard to the (decision maker’s) antecedent decisions”.[12]
[11]Chapman v CMC & Rynders [2012] QCATA 16 at 9.
[12]Conder v Byrne (2004) QSC 82 per de Jersey CJ at paragraph 3.
The determination of a disciplinary matter is an administrative function where the appropriate standard is the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker with that degree of satisfaction varying according to the gravity of the fact to be proved: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-62.
“But the standard of proof to be applied in a case and the relationship between the degree of persuasion of the mind according to the balance of probabilities and the gravity or otherwise of the fact of whose existence the mind is to be persuaded are not to be confused. The difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof is no mere matter of words: it is a matter of critical substance. No matter how grave the fact which is to be found in a civil case, the mind has only to be reasonably satisfied and has not with respect to any matter in issue in such a proceeding to attain that degree of certainty which is indispensable to the support of a conviction upon a criminal charge ...”[13]
[13]Rejfek v McElroy (1964-5) 112 CLR 517, 521; see also Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170, 171.
The consequence of disciplinary proceedings is serious for the applicant so the tribunal must be reasonably satisfied in respect of the matter in issue.
In the absence of witnesses the tribunal notes the reservations expressed in Crime & Misconduct Commission v Deputy Commissioner Queensland Police Service & Chapman[14] (Chapman) and finds them similarly applicable in this matter.
[14] [2010] QCAT 564 paragraphs 17-19.
Background
The basis of the incident is straightforward. The complainant was arrested on 17 February 2008 after being evicted from the Treasury Casino in Brisbane City. She was arrested for the offences of drunk and disorderly in licensed premises, failing to leave licensed premises and obstruct [sic] police.[15] The tribunal notes the complainant’s acknowledgement of this behaviour.[16] Two officers were attempting to restrain her. She was yelling at the police officers that she had a bad neck from a previous accident.[17] The tribunal notes that there is evidence of a prior neck injury.[18] Treasury Casino CCTV footage shows that the applicant arrived into the scene and pushed the back of the complainant’s neck onto the bonnet of the police vehicle. As a result the complainant’s glasses were skewed and there was visible a small amount of blood on the side of her nose. The applicant, as the respondent acknowledged,[19] was not “smashing” the complainant’s head onto the bonnet as the complainant had alleged.[20] The CCTV footage indicates a single action by the applicant. The complainant described this action as involving “major physical force.”[21]
[15] Part B page 153 Statement of Complainant paragraph 10.
[16] Part B page 153 Statement of Complainant paragraph 5, page 154 paragraph 6.
[17] Part B page 154 Statement of Complainant paragraph 8.
[18]Part B page 174: letter dated 15 July 2008 from Dr E McLachlan, the complainant’s treating psychiatrist attesting to the injury and medication for pain associated with a neck injury. The doctor notes that the “medication combined with alcohol may result in adverse effects including behavioural change.”
[19] Part A page 70.
[20] Part B page 153 Statement of Complainant paragraph 8.
[21] Part B page 154 Statement of Complainant paragraph 8.
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant through his counsel Mr Schmidt submits that to substantiate the matter, the tribunal must be satisfied the force the applicant used was excessive in the circumstances. Specifically, and in accordance with the further and better particulars provided, the tribunal must be satisfied that the force used was excessive when he pushed the complainant’s head into the bonnet of the police vehicle, and she received a broken nose due to the force used on her.[22]
[22] Outline of Argument for the Applicant paragraph 17.
The applicant submits that the respondent failed to give sufficient weight to the expert opinion of A/Senior Sergeant Hayden (Hayden) of the Operational Skills and Tactics Program that the force used was not excessive but rather was appropriate and in accordance with training.[23]
[23] Applicant’s Outline of Argument paragraph 5.
Mr Schmidt referred the tribunal to Hayden’s report which had been generated by the respondent[24] in response to a request by the applicant’s counsel[25] to review the Treasury Casino CCTV footage and provide an opinion. After studying the CCTV footage of the incident at the Treasury Casino, Hayden considered that the:
a) “poor skills and tactics of the original responding police directly led to this arrest escalating into a use-of-force incident”;
b) the applicant “did not use excessive and an unnecessary amount of force during the arrest of the female person”; and
c) “the prisoner directly contributed to any injury ...”[26]
[24]Part A page 48 letter dated 11 March 2011 from the Respondent acknowledging the concerns of the Applicant’s counsel and informing him that she had requested “a suitable officer from the Education and Training Command to view the CCTV footage and provide advice on compliance or otherwise, regarding the technique and use of force by Constable Hearn against GM.”
[25] Part A pages 42-43 letter dated 18 January 2011 from Mr Schmidt.
[26] Part A Hayden Report page 57.
Hayden’s report analysed the incident against the criteria set out in chapter 14.3 Operational Skills and Practices,[27] specifically 14.3.2 Situational Use of Force Model 2009. He found that the applicant acted appropriately when tested against the relevant criteria. These criteria are that the actions were authorised,[28] reasonable / proportionate / appropriate,[29] legally defensible,[30] and tactically sound.[31] Hayden stated “I am of the belief that Constable Hearn did not use an excessive use of force whilst coming to the assistance of the arresting officers.”[32] Hayden states in relation to use of force by an officer that
“... a preferred position is to organisationally support officers by providing operationally relevant tools (such as the Situational Use of Force Model 2009, the Threat Assessment and Tactical Decision making process) to assist them in competently, carefully and continually assessing the circumstances contributing to the situation which will inform their selection of a use of force option ... the QPS does contextualise all use of force options within a paradigm of using the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve an incident ...”[33]
[27] Exhibit 2.
[28] Part A, page 59 at 53.
[29] Part A, page 60 at 55.
[30] Part A, page 60 at 56.
[31] Part A, page 60 at 57.
[32] Part A page 59 at paragraph 53.
[33] Part A page 62 paragraph 62.
The tribunal notes that Hayden, having found that the applicant did not use excessive force and that his actions were proportionate, suggests the applicant be reminded that: for every use-of-force action there is a consequence; when selecting a use-of-force tactic, it is good practice to evaluate the propensity of rapid control versus injury to a subject and the applicant be reminded that a “... possible consequence of pushing the head of a resisting and combative prisoner forward in a group arrest situation may result in a potential injury to that person.”[34]
[34] Part A page 62 paragraph 64.
The tribunal considers that Hayden’s recommendations appear to be contradictory given that he had stated that there was no use of excessive force by the applicant and that the applicant’s actions were compliant with the policy in the Situational Use of Force Model 2009. His latter statements appear to negate his former statements.
The applicant submitted that the respondent wrongly had regard to the opinion of Inspector R Crozier (“Crozier”) of the Policing Skills Program.[35] In a communication dated 11 July 2011 accompanying the Hayden report, Crozier states:
“I agree with Hayden’s assessment that Hearn did not use an excessive or unnecessary amount of force. I do, however, consider that, upon viewing the CCTV footage, Hearn seemingly ‘rushed in’ and did not appear to undertake an appropriate assessment of the situation.
I consider that the techniques employed by Hearn were appropriate, however due to his apparent haste to resolve the incident, the application of the technique does not appear to be well controlled.”[36]
[35] Part A page 72.
[36] Part A pages 49-50.
The tribunal considers that there is a certain degree of ambivalence in the advice of Hayden and Crozier.
Discussion
It is not in issue that the complainant suffered a broken nose, in fact a double fracture,[37] and the respondent accepted that it occurred while the complainant was in police custody.[38] The respondent, having viewed the CCTV footage from the watchhouse and having regard to what she described as the complainant’s “violent nature on the night in question,”[39] acknowledged that there was doubt whether the fracture was caused by the applicant or at another stage of the police custody where the applicant was not present.
[37] Part B page 155 Statement of Complainant paragraph 11.
[38] Part A page 71.
[39] Part A page 71.
The issue is whether the applicant applied excessive force in seeking to assist in restraining the complainant and whether this conduct was “improper” and therefore misconduct under section 9 of the (PS(D)R)[40].
[40]By section 1.4 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 “misconduct” includes conduct which is “improper”.
The tribunal appreciates that those police officers stationed in the city are regularly on the front line confronted with difficult behaviour.
“It is regrettably true that police are sometimes abused and obstructed when lawfully exercising their powers. Undoubtedly this occurs more frequently for those officers working at a City Beat station.”[41]
[41]Crime and Misconduct Commission v Swindells & Gardiner [2010] QCAT 490 at 7 per Kingham J, Deputy President.
The tribunal notes that the applicant at the time of this incident had been stationed in the city approximately three and a half years[42] and 70-80% of the city work involved intoxicated people.[43] He therefore was experienced in this type of incident and often successful in calming intoxicated persons.[44]
[42] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 84.
[43] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 85.
[44] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 83.
Police officers in this situation are regularly required to restrain persons who may be aggressive or disorderly. Officers therefore need to have a range of skills so enabling them to deal safely, efficiently and effectively.[45] The policy articulates the principle that officers should only use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve an incident.[46] The tribunal also appreciates the fact that police officers often have to act decisively in confused situations.
[45] OPM Operational Skills and Practices s.14.3.1.
[46] OPM Operational Skills and Practices s.14.3.1.
The tribunal has viewed with close attention the relevant CCTV footage of 17 February 2008 from both the Treasury Casino and from the watch house. It is noted that at the former location, two police officers were attempting to restrain the complainant and that their efforts in this regard might be kindly described as inept. The applicant was called to assist.[47] He described his action as follows:
“... I’ve grabbed her at the base of the neck top of the shoulders sort of thing and at this stage she was actually, her legs were pretty much up against the bonnet of the police car or the front of the police car. I’ve pushed her down, as I’ve initially gone to push her she’s pushed back against me um so obviously I’ve, I’ve pushed her again and it, it felt to me at the time like I don’t know whether she’s just decided to comply or her feet have slipped out but she’s actually sort of gone from stiff and against me to going down fairly hard.”[48]
[47] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 pages 60-61.
[48] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 62.
Once the complainant was upright, the applicant noted that she was wearing glasses which he had not originally seen because he had approached from behind. On the right hand side of her nose was a small cut which was bleeding slightly which he likened to a bad shaving cut[49] and which he believed was where the glasses had pushed onto the bridge of her nose.[50]
[49] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 80.
[50] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 pages 62-63.
The complainant however was demonstrably very intoxicated. Her description of “smashing” by the applicant, implying multiple actions, is what the Treasury Casino CCTV footage demonstrates is in fact a single action. The accuracy of her description of “major physical force” is also unreliable given her level of intoxication.
The complainant was in February 2008 nearly 55 years of age. The applicant, coming up to the scene from behind, had originally thought she was late twenties to mid-thirties.[51] She describes herself as “a very small woman (52kg)”[52] which is indeed small. The two police officers who more or less had her in hand were likely, unassisted, eventually going to be able to restrain the complainant given her size, age and level of intoxication.
[51] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 71.
[52] Part B Interview with complainant page 155.
The applicant considers that his action was appropriate and according to relevant policy[53] and he would use the same tactics again.[54] The tribunal agrees with the respondent that there is a problem in second guessing police officers confronted with difficult situations:[55]
“Police officers whose lot is to maintain good order and public safety in public places face a multitude of situations which often develop suddenly and have potentially unpredictable outcomes. Officers are required to make assessments, in real time, of the nature of the behaviour and how to respond to it so that good order is restored by means appropriate in the circumstances. ...
The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (“PPRA”) gives powers to police officers for the purpose of carrying out their functions and also casts duties on them to exercise those powers in a way that observes safeguards provided in regard to the rights of those who frequent public places. This case requires analysis, almost in the manner of a video referee or third umpire, of the sequence of brief events that occurred in the Queen Street Mall over 18 months ago. Emulating those officials, I have viewed the footage of the arrest a number of times in real time and frame by frame. It involves reviewing the electronically recorded evidence of what happened and of the thought processes, as disclosed in that and in oral evidence, of the parties as it unfolded. In such a case, care must be taken to keep in mind that:
‘In evaluating the police conduct, the matter must be judged by reference to the pressure of events and the agony of the moment and not by reference to hindsight.’ (Pringle v Everingham [2006] NSWCA 195 at 67).”[56]
[53] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 112.
[54] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 110.
[55] Part A page 69.
[56] Rowe v Kemper [2008] QCA 175 at paragraph 84 per Mackenzie AJA.
The applicant in this case was experienced in just such a situation as confronted him on 17 February 2008 and trained to deal with it appropriately and proportionately. It is the task of the independent tribunal to provide the scrutiny of the action and assess its appropriateness.
The respondent submits[57] that the applicant did rush in without exercising appropriate judgement of the situation: there was no weapon; two other police officers were there and the applicant did not apply his training to the situation.
[57] Outline of Submissions on Behalf of Respondent paragraph 57.
The tribunal, after close and multiple examination of the relevant frames from the Treasury Casino CCTV footage as well as of the watch house CCTV footage and bringing independent scrutiny to the applicant’s action, finds that the use of force by the applicant is, given the context and circumstances, disproportionate and excessive and therefore improper conduct. There was considerable disparity between the size of the applicant and the force he applied comparable to the size, age and level of intoxication of the complainant. The tribunal considers that the applicant’s action was forceful, hard and certainly determinative of any further resistance by the complainant. It is likely that her glasses were a contributing factor to the injury.
It is possible that the broken nose occurred then and there as an immediate result of the action of the applicant.[58] The complainant was held down by the back of the neck for some time as her face slid down the bonnet of the police vehicle. There is an identifiable injury when her face becomes visible. There are, however succeeding events that cause this conclusion to be doubted. The complainant was placed, unrestrained by seat belts,[59] in the back of the police van. It is plausible that the fracture occurred during the interim period when the complainant travelled in the van to the watch house.
[58] Treasury Casino CCTV footage 2.51.59 and 2.52.00.
[59] Part B Interview with Applicant 13 May 2010 page 77.
On arrival at the watch house, the complainant continued to be unco-operative and was assessed as violent[60] and suicidal.[61] After careful viewing of the watch house CCTV and the complainant’s behaviour at the front counter it is possible that her nose was fractured when it apparently came into contact with the counter at the watch house front desk. The colour photographs taken of the complainant lead the tribunal to consider that it is highly likely that the nose has been fractured at the time the photographs were taken.[62]
[60] Part B page 144.
[61] Part B page 145.
[62] Exhibits 3(a) and 3(b).
The tribunal is able to conclude that the applicant by his action, did cause an injury to the complainant’s nose. The extent of the injury at the time of impact with the police vehicle bonnet is in doubt. The tribunal, exercising the Briginshaw standard, is unable to state that the applicant caused the fractured nose.
The context for the applicant however required evaluation of the situation: a group arrest; a resisting person both intoxicated and small and the potential to injure where the head or neck are pushed forward suddenly. All these elements required the use of minimum force.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the PS(D)R the tribunal is satisfied that the sanction of reprimand is appropriate.
Pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act the decision is confirmed.
Other matter – Non-publication
The applicant seeks a non-publication order, which is unopposed by the respondent, in relation to:
a) the identity other than the applicant and the respondent, of any person named in the material;
b) the images depicted on all CCTV footage from both the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house;
c) the photographs (or copies) depicting the face and injuries of the complainant; and
d) any reference in either the findings or draft findings of the respondent in relation to referring matters for further investigation.
The bases for this request are:
a) the complainant was vulnerable, intoxicated and in police custody and later convicted and it would serve no public purpose to have her identified;
b) other police officers involved in the arrest of the complainant at the Treasury Casino may yet face disciplinary proceedings to assess their compliance with police training;
c) CCTV footage of other police officers in the watch house is being investigated by the QPS Ethical Standards Command and those police officers may face disciplinary proceedings;
d) premature publication in relation to these other police officers may unnecessarily interfere with investigations; and
e) were a non-publication order made, this would not prevent:
i)subsequent publication of the outcome of those investigations, or
ii)the media making inquiries of the QPS as to the status of such investigations.
The tribunal has the power to order non-publication where criteria set out in subsection 66(2) of the QCAT Act can be met:
“(2) The tribunal may make an order under subsection (1) only if the tribunal considers the order is necessary—
(a) to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice; or
(b) to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person; or
(c) to avoid offending public decency or morality; or
(d) to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or
(e) for any other reason in the interests of justice.”A consequence in court proceedings is that embarrassing matters come to light but the requirements of open justice outweigh such considerations.[63]
[63]John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 at 142-143 per Kirby P.
The tribunal notes that prior to the events of 17 February 2008 the complainant was already under the care of a psychiatrist and on particular medication. There is no public purpose in revealing the identity, photographs or the CCTV of the complainant and it is in her interest that these not be revealed. The tribunal considers that it is to protect her well-being that she not be identified in accordance with subsection 66(2)(b).
In the case of the other officers, any investigation is better divorced from publication so investigations may continue unimpeded by publicity. At the same time, the media are not prevented from inquiring about the progress of any investigation into the conduct of these officers. Pursuant to subsection 66(2)(e) the tribunal considers that it is in the interest of any investigations into the conduct or training deficits of other officers connected with this matter that their names not be published.
In this matter, the names of the applicant and the respondent will be published.
The tribunal orders the non-publication of:
a) the identity, other than the applicant and the respondent, of the complainant and two officers involved in the arrest of the complainant at the Treasury Casino on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material;
b) police officers connected with the detention of the complainant at the Brisbane watch house on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material;
c) the images depicted on all CCTV footage from both the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house; and
d) the photographs (or copies) depicting the face and injuries of the complainant.
4
12
5