McEwen v Commissioner of Police

[1983] AFPDT 4

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE	1
-l No. 10 o f 1983

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL 5

BETWEEN : EDWARD J O H N McEiVEN

Appe l l an t

AND : THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Respondent

O R D E R S

THE PRESIDENT

9 DECEMBER 1983

CANBERRA, A . C . T .

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The a p p e a l s be d i smissed .

2. The p e n a l t y o f d i s m i s s a l from 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

o f P r o t e c t i v e Se rv i ce F i r s t Cons t a b l e Edward John McEwen

imposed i n r e s p e c t of Charges Nos. AFP:36/8283, 37/8283 and

41/8283 i s t o txke e f f e c t f o r t h w i t h .

3. The f i n e s of t h r e e days pay , two days pay, two days pay and

two days pay imposed i n r e s p e c t o f Charges Nos. AFP: 35/8283,

38/8283, 39/8283 and 40/8283 r e s p e c t i v e l y a r e conf i rmed.

I N THE FEDERAL P O L I C E

No. 10 of 1983

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

BETWEEN : EDNARD JOHN McEWEN

Appel lan t

AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF P O L I C E

Respondent

REASONS FOR D E C I S I O N : -- KELLY J [Pres iden t ]

9 DECEMBER 1983

P r o t e c t i v e Se rv i ce F i r s t Constable Edward John McEwen

( t h e A p p e l l a n t ) , a member o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e , appealed

a g a i n s t a number of p e n a l t i e s imposed upon him by t h e Commissioner of

P o l i c e pursuan t t o S . 67 (6) o f t h e Complaints ( A u s t r a l i a n Federa l

P o l i c e ) Act 1981 ( t h e Act ) . He had been charged w i t h seven

d i s c i p l i n a r y of fences be fo re a member of t h e T r i b u n a l , M r . J . R . B .

N o r r i s , Q . C . He pleaded g u i l t y t o each charge. The Tr ibuna l

recorded a f i n d i n g t h a t he was g u i l t y of each and, a s r e q u i r e d by

t h e Act , r emi t t ed t h e proceedings t o t h e Commissioner o f Po l i ce

f o r t h e impos i t ion o f p e n a l t i e s .

The cha rges , a l l i n r e s p e c t of b reaches o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Fede ra l P o l i c e ( D i s c i p l i n e ) Regula t ions ( t h e Regu la t i ons ) , were

p a r t i c u l a r i s e d a s fo l lows : -

That t h e Appe l lan t was g u i l t y o f a d i s c i p l i n a r y of fence

spec i , f i ed i n paragraph 18(1) (a) of t h e Regula t ions by

con t raven ing -

1. a p r o v i s i o n of D iv i s ion 1 of t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 4. (1) ( a ) , i n t h a t on 20 March 1982 a t Mile

End i n t h e S t a t e o f South A u s t r a l i a , having been

r e q u i r e d t o perform du ty a t Mile End S t a t i o n f o r t h e

p e r i o d commencing a t 1400 hours , and t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l

2200 hou r s , on t h a t d a t e he , n o t having been g ran t ed

l eave o f absence f o r t h a t p e r i o d , f a i l e d t o r e p o r t f o r

du ty (Aus t r a l i an Fede ra l Po l i ce Charge No. AFP:35/8283) ;

2 . a p r o v i s i o n of D iv i s ion 1 (of t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 6. ( b ) , i n t h a t oin 2 2 March 1982, a t Mile End

i n t he S t a t e o f South A u s t r a l i a , he made an e n t r y i n

an o f f i c i a l book, namely, t h e "Mile End Railway Squad Attendance Book1' showing h i s time of a r r i v a l f o r duty

a t Mile End S t a t i o n on 20 March 1982 a s be ing 1400 hours

and h i s time of completing duty on t h a t d a t e as be ing

2200 hou r s , the reby knowingly making a f a l s e e n t r y i n an

o f f i c i a l book (Charge No. .AFP: 36/8283) ;

3. a p r o v i s i o n of D iv i s ion 1 (of t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 6. (b) , i n t h a t between 20 March 1982 and

1 3 Apr i l 1982, a t Mile End i n t h e S t a t e o f South A u s t r a l i a ,

he made an e n t r y i n an o f f i c i a l r eco rd , namely, an llA.F.P.

24-Salary Advice Sheet" showing h i s s h i f t t imes f o r Saturday 20 March 1982 a s having been 1400 hours t o

2200 hou r s , h i s e n t i t l e m e n t t o a 50% p e n a l t y i n r e s p e c t

of t h a t s h i f t and h i s e n t i t l e m e n t t o a motor d r i v i n g

allowance i n r e s p e c t o f t h a t s h i f t , the reby knowingly

making a f a l s e e n t r y i n an o f f i c i a l r eco rd (Charge No.

AFP: 37/8283) ;

4. a p r o v i s i o n o f D i v i s i o n 1 of t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 1 2 . (1) ( a ) , i n t h a t on 20 November 1981, a t

Adelaide i n t h e S t a t e o f South A u s t r a l i a , h e , by

t e lephone , n o t i f i e d P r o t e c t i v e Se rv i ce Sergean t David

Gregor - Number 435, a member 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 on duty a t t h e S a l i s b u r y Defence Research Cen t r e

S t a t i o n , t h a t he would n o t be r e p o r t i n g f o r r o s t e r e d

duty f o r t h e p e r i o d 2 1 November 1981 t o 2 2 November 1981

i n c l u s i v e on account o f s i c k n e s s , the reby e x a g g e r a t i n g

an a i lmen t , namely, Hay Fever , f o r t h e purpose o f

evading duty (Charge No. AFP : 38/8283) ;

5. a p r o v i s i o n o f D i v i s i o n 1 o f t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 1 2 . ( l ) ( a ) , i n t h a t on 28 February l q82 , a t

Canberra 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 e , by

t e lephone , n o t i f i e d P r o t e c t i v e Se rv i ce Sen ior Cons t ab l e

E r i c William Temme - Number 1527, a member o f t h e

A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e on duty a t t h e Mile End

S t a t i o n , t h a t he would n o t be r e p o r t i n g f o r r o s t e r e d

duty on 1 March 1982 on accoun t o f s i c k n e s s , t h e r e b y

f e i g n i n g an a i l m e n t , namely, an Upset Stomach, f o r t h e

purpose of evading du ty (Charge No. AFP: 39/8283) ;

6. a p r o v i s i o n o f D iv i s ion 1 o f t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 1 2 . (1) ( a ) , i n t h a t on 19 A p r i l 1982, a t

Canberra 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 e , by

t e lephone , n o t i f i e d P r o t e c t i v e Se rv i ce F i r s t Cons tab le Andrew Franc i s Clements - Number 1715, a member o f t h e

A u s t r a l i a n Federa l P o l i c e on duty a t t h e Mile End

S t a t i o n , t h a t he would n o t be r e p o r t i n g f o r du ty on

19 A p r i l 1982 on account o f s i c k n e s s , the reby

exagge ra t i ng an a i l m e n t , namely, Upset Stomach, f o r

t h e purpose o f evading d u t y (Charge No. AFP:40/8283) ;

7. a p r o v i s i o n of D i v i s i o n 1 o f t h e Regula t ions , namely

paragraph 6. (b) , i n t h a t on 4 March 1982, a t Mile End

i n t h e S t a t e o f South A u s t r a l i a , he made an e n t r y i n

an o f f i c i a l document, namely, and "A.F.P. 188 -

Appl i ca t i on f o r Leave" showing, a s t h e n a t u r e o f

i l l n e s s f o r which he w a s app ly ing f o r l e ave , an Upset

Stomach, the reby knowingly making a f a l s e e n t r y i n an

o f f i c i a l document (Charge No. AFP: 41/8283).

The Commissioner imposed p e n a l t i e s i n r e s p e c t o f each o f

t h e charges a s fo l lows : -

1. Charge No. ($181.59) ; AFP:35/8283 - a f i n e of t h r e e days pay

2 . Charge No. AFP:36/8283 - d i s m i s s a l ;

3. Charge No. AFP:37/8283 - d i s m i s s a l ;

4.   Charge No. AFP: 3818283 - a fine of two days pay ($121.06) ;

5.   Charge No. AFP:39/8283 - a fine of two days pay ($121.06) ;

6 . Charge No. AFP:40/8283 - a f i n e o f two days pay

($121.06) ;

7 . Charge No. AFP:41/8283 - d i s m i s s a l .

The p e n a l t i e s imposed a r e provided f o r by paragraphs (b) l

and ( e ) of Regula t ion 22(1) o f t h e Regulat ions . 1

In s u b s t a n c e t h e grounds o f appeal were : -

~

1. The Commissioner of P o l i c e ( t h e Commissioner) f a i l e d t o

l

have any o r p rope r r ega rd f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e two groups ~

of	o f f e n c e s	i d e n t i f i e d	r e s p e c t i v e l y	a s	Charges	Nos.	AFP:	I I
l

39/8283 and 41/8283 and Charges Nos. AFP: 35/8283, 36/8283 ~

and 37/8283 a r o s e o u t o f s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n s

l

and as a r e s u l t of t h a t f a i l u r e imposed p e n a l t i e s t h a t were

l ~

unduly s e v e r e and had t h e e f f e c t o f pun i sh ing t h e Appel lant 1

more than once f o r e s s e n t i a l l y a s i n g l e wrong-doing.

2 . That each and every p e n a l t y imposed was unduly s eve re having I 1

r ega rd t o t h e m a t t e r s a l l e g e d and t h e m a t t e r s p u t i n ~

m i t i g a t i o n , t h e Commissioner f a i l i n g t o have any o r p roper ~

r ega rd f o r t h e m a t t e r s p u t i n m i t i g a t i o n . ~

3. That a l l t h e p e n a l t i e s imposed were unduly s eve re .

4 . That i f t h e p e n a l t i e s o f d i s m i s s a l a r e upheld t he a d d i t i o n a l

f i n e s imposed were unduly s eve re having r ega rd t o a l l t he

c i rcumstances o f t h e o f fences .

The ev idence concerning the o f f ences i s r e l a t i v e l y meagre

b u t i t was n o t sugges t ed by M r . Fairbank of counse l f o r t h e

Commissioner t h a t I should r e j e c t t h e Appe l l an t ' s w r i t t e n

e x p l a n a t i o n o r any o f t he evidence c a l l e d o r t ende red on h i s beha l f .

M r . Fairbank made no cha l lenge t o any o f t h e f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l which

M r . Herriman p u t forward i n h i s submissions t o M r . No r r i s and t o

me. Accordingly , I a c c e p t t h a t m a t e r i a l a s a c c u r a t e excep t a s t o

one m a t t e r where c l e a r l y M r . Herriman was mis taken.

On t h e b a s i s of a l l t h e m a t e r i a l j u s t r e f e r r e d t o I make

t h e fo l l owing f i n d i n g s of f a c t , d e a l i n g w i th t h e cha rges , n o t i n

t h e o r d e r i n which they were p r e f e r r e d , b u t i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l o rde r

and i n t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e groups.

The Appel lan t jo ined t h e Commonwealth P o l i c e , one o f t he

p redeces so r s of t he A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e , i n 1977. I n t h a t

y e a r he mar r i ed and has a f i v e y e a r o l d c h i l d . I n October/November

1981 he and h i s w i f e s e p a r a t e d , n o t amicably. S ince t h a t time t h e r e

had been p r o t r a c t e d d i s p u t e s concerning t h e mat r imonia l pos se s s ions

and money. H i s w i f e has con t inued t o l i v e i n t h e matr imonial home

b u t he pays t h e mortgage payments on t he house, a l l medical and

h o s p i t a l b e n e f i t s and some loan repayments. I n t o t a l he pays

C! $218.00 p e r f o r t n i g h t p l u s medical b e n e f i t s t o o r on b e h a l f o f h i s

w i f e , l e a v i n g h imse l f a n e t income a f t e r payment o f t a x o f $300.00

p e r f o r t n i g h t . By t h i s t ime, undoubl:edly, a decree n i s i f o r t h e

d i s s o l u t i o n o f h i s marr iage has been made. About t h a t t ime he

was s u f f e r i n g from Hay Fever and from stomach u p s e t s , t h e l a t t e r

c o n d i t i o n be ing p o s s i b l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i s matr imonial d i f f i c u l t i e s .

M r . Herriman went on t o s t a t e t h a t i n e a r l y 1982 t h e

Appe l lan t was pos t ed t o Canberra on o f f i c i a l work and i n t h e course

o f t h a t poszing met his p r e s e n t f i ancee . This does n o t accord

C) w i t h M r . Herriman's l a t e r s t a t emen t t h a t i n November IS81 t h e

Appe l lan t went t o Canberra t o s e e h i s g i r l - f r i e n d . Nor does i t

acco rd w i t h a s t a t emen t i n his s e r v i c e record which shows t h a t on

13 J anua ry 1982 he made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t r a n s f e r t o 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 compassionate grounds, he be ing then s e p a r a t e d

from his wi f e and son. The compassionate grounds were, a s appears

c l e a r l y from a f u r t h e r e n t r y i n t h a t record da ted 30 March 1982,

t h a t he wished t o be n e a r h i s f i a n c e e . Af t e r meeting h e r he saw

h e r on many occas ions dur ing v i s i t s t o Canberra, made sometimes

wh i l e on du ty , sometimes p r i v a t e l y .

On 20 November 1981 he s u f f e r e d a mi ld a t t a c k o f hay f e v e r ,

n o t s eve re enough t o p reven t him from working. Neve r the l e s s , a s

Charge No. AFP: 38/8283 r e l a t e s , he t e lephoned Sergean t Gregor t o

t e l l him t h a t the hay f e v e r from which he was s u f f e r i n g preven ted

him from r e p o r t i n g f o r r o s t e r e d duty on 2 1 / 2 2 November 1981. He

then went t o Canberra t o s ee h i s g i r l - f r i e n d . Some s i g n i f i c a n c e

may a t t a c h t o t he f a c t t h a t 20, 2 1 and 2 2 November 1981 were

r e s p e c t i v e l y a Friday, Saturday and Sunday b u t t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e

me	does n o t enab le me	t o say e x a c t l y what	t h a t	s i g n i f i c a n c e	should
be.

The Appel lan t den ies t h a t he f e i g n e d i l l n e s s on t h a t d a t e

s o t h a t he might go t o Canberra bu t i t would p a s s reason t o

C a c c e p t t h a t he d i d n o t use t h e excuse o f a minor i n d i s p o s i t i o n

t o go t o Canberra. No charge sugges t s t h a t t h e Appe l lan t r ece ived

s i c k pay i n r e s p e c t of h i s absence from w ~ r k on 2 1 / 2 2 November

1981 and I p u t t h a t cons ide ra t i on o u t o f mind.

I cons ide r n e x t t he group of two charges numbered AFP:39/8283

and 41/8283.

On 28 February 1982 t h e Appe l lan t was i n Canberra. He was

about t o r e t u r n bu t missed his bus. He te lephoned Sen io r Constable

Temme and s a i d t h a t he had an upse t stomach and would be unable t o

r e p o r t f o r du ty a s r o s t e r e d on 1 March 1982. The Appel lant s a i d

o f	t h i s	o f f e n c e ,
"In a sense the reason I pu t on my A.F.P. 188,
an u p s e t stomach was p a r t l y t r u e due t o t h e f a c t
t h a t I go t wor r ied about miss ing t h e bus and
t h a t gave me an upse t stomach,."

However, it i s n o t suggested t h a t t h a t i n d i s p o s i t i o n was enough

t o cause h i s absence from work. Indeed, on h i s s t a t emen t , it

a r o s e a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t which gave r i s e t o t h e f a l s e te lephone c a l l .

Reference t o h i s condi t ion must t h e r e f o r e be t aken a s simply an

excuse t o cover up t h e f a c t t h a t he had missed t h e bus and would

n o t be ab l e t o t ake up duty a t t h e a l p o i n t e d time.

I nex t cons ide r t h e group o f offences numbered

AFP:35/8283, 36/8283 and 37/8283.

On 20 March 1982 t h e Appe l lan t was i n Canberra. I n

h i s submissions made on 2 1 March 1983 t o M r . N o r r i s , M r . Herriman

s a i d of t h e Appel lant :

"He was unwel l , He was very depressed and he

decided t h a t he was n o t going t o come back t h a t

day. He wanted t o s t a y ano ther day."

l

I have no reason t o doubt t h o s e s ta tements bu t a g a i n i t i s n o t

l

sugges ted t h a t h i s c o n d i t i o n was such a s t o p r even t him from I

a t t e n d i n g	t o h i s	d u t i e s .	He	r ang	h i s	co l league ,	P r o t e c t i v e	~
l

Serv i ce F i r s t Constable F r e d e r i c k Newton Marr, r o s t e r e d f o r t h e

l

same s h i f t f o r which he was r o s t e r e d , and asked Cons tab le Marr

C t o "cover f o r him". F o o l i s h l y Constatble Marr agreed t o do s o

and	a s a	consequence	was	charged w i t h i	f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t h i s	i
l

knowledge of t he commission by Constable McEwen o f t h e o f f e n c e

of be ing o f f i c i a l records i n d i c a t i n g Constable McEwen1s supposed p re sence absent w i thou t l e a v e and wi th making f a l s e e n t r i e s i n

l

on duty dur ing t h e s h i f t which he should have worked on 20 March

1982. Subsequently, on 2 2 March 1982, the Appel lant made f a l s e

e n t r i e s i n the a p p r o p r i a t e a t t endance book showing h i s t ime o f

a r r i v a l f o r duty on 20 March 1982 a s 1400 hours and h i s t ime 06

C.! ceas ing duty a s 2200 hours .

On an u n s p e c i f i e d d a t e between 20 March 1982 and 1 3 A p r i l

1982 he made f a l s e e n t r i e s r e f e r r e d t o i n Charge No. AFP:37/8283.

He exp la ined t h e f a l s e e n t r i e s i n the a t t endance book a s

coming about a s a r e s u l t o f an i n s t r u c t i o n by Se rgean t B o l l , h i s

s u p e r i o r . Had he r e f u s e d t o s i g n t he book, he s a i d , he would have

brought a t t e n t i o n t o t h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s concerned and t o h imse l f .

I n o t h e r words, t h e decep t ion which had been c a r r i e d o u t would

have been immediately d i scovered . He gave a s h i s reason f o r

making t h e f a l s e e n t r y i n t h e s a l a r y advice s h e e t t h a t i t was

t o o l a t e t o do any th ing e l s e . He s a i d , "By t h i s time I had

r e a l i s e d I had done wrong i n t h e f i r s t p l ace and by a d m i t t i n g

t o i t I would have g o t t he o t h e r o f f i c e r s i n t r oub le . " By t h i s

I t a k e him t o have meant t h a t f a i l u r e t o s i g n t h e s a l a r y adv ice

s h e e t a s he d i d would have been tantamount t o an admission o f t h e

f a l s i t y o f t h e e a r l i e r e n t r i e s and would have involved o t h e r

o f f i c e r s , i n c l u d i n g Constable Marr, who knew of t h e decep t ion i n

d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h e i r s u p e r i o r s .

I t u r n t o t h e l a s t charge , No. AFP:40/8283.

On 19 A p r i l 1982 the Appe l lan t was aga in i n Canberra. He

te lephoned f i r s t Constable Clements t o say t h a t he would n o t be

C r e p o r t i n g f o r duty on 19 A p r i l 1982 and gave a s h i s reason an

u p s e t stomach. H i s p l e a admits t h a t he exaggera ted t h a t c o n d i t i o n

f o r t h e purpose of evading duty . H i s exp l ana t ion was a s fo l lows : -

l l .. . a g a i n I f e e l I d i d n ' t f e i g n s i c k n e s s f o r t h e

purpose o f s t a y i n g i n Canberra f o r an e x t r a day.

A t t h i s t ime I was f e e l i n g ve ry low and depressed

and g e t t i n g stomach u p s e t s q u i t e o f t e n , and having

someone t o c a r e f o r you a t t h a t s t a g e is very

comfor t ing. Also due t o t h e f a c t t h a t my a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r any type of t r a n s f e r t o t h e A.C .T . had aga in been

den ied d idn ' t he lp m a t t e r s . ''

I was asked t o take i n t o account a number o f m a t t e r s i n

m i t i g a t i o n . I l i s t some of them:-

C-) 1. The s t a t e of t h e Appe l l an t ' s h e a l t h , i n d i c a t e d by h i s l o s s o f

we igh t ,	i n a b i l i t y t o	s l e e p	and	dep re s s ion	and h i s	s eek ing
medical	adv ice .

2 . H i s s e r v i c e i n a number of p o s t i n g s , some obviously

i n v o l v i n g a degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

3. H i s o the rwi se blameless p o l i c e r eco rd .

4. H i s concern and con t inu ing d i s t r e s s a t the t r o u b l e he had

caused o t h e r members	i n r e l a t i o n t o charges Nos.	AFP:35/8283,
36/8283 and 37/8283.

5. H i s a n x i e t y t o cont inue t o s e r v e .in t h e A u s t r a l i a n Federa l

P o l i c e .

6. The ev idence of h i s good c h a r a c t e r t ende red on h i s beha l f

through v a r i o u s w i tnes se s and by means of w r i t t e n r e f e r e n c e s .

7 . The Appe l l an t ' S f rankness when q u e s t i o n e d about t he o f f ences

by i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s .

I a ccep t t h e honesty o f t he c h a r a c t e r w i tnes se s and o f

t hose who gave r e f e r e n c e s .

M r . Herriman submi t ted t h a t I shou ld t r e a t t h e o f f ences

charged i n Charges Nos. AFP:35/8283, 38/8283, 39/8283 and 40/8283

a s unpremedi ta ted. He submi t ted a l s o t h a t 1 should t r e a t t h e

C o f f e n c e s a s c o n s t i t u t i n g i n subs tance f o u r t r a n s a c t i o n s on ly and,

a s I unders tood him, t h a t I should t a k e t h e view t h a t t he o f f ences

charged i n Charges Nos. AFP:36/8283 and 37/8283 and the o f fence

charged i n Charge No. AFP:41/8283 were t he i n e v i t a b l e and

i n e x t r i c a b l e consequences o f t h e o f f e n c e s charged i n Charges Nos.

AFP: 35/8283 and 39/8283 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

An a c t may be s a i d t o be p remed i t a t ed when i t i s planned

o r c o n t r i v e d p r e v i o u s l y . on' t he o t h e r hand an a c t done from a

sudden i n c l i n a t i o n t o a c t w i thou t p r emed i t a t i on i s s a i d t o be

done impu l s ive ly . I do n o t accep t t h a t any of t h e seven a c t s was

done w i t h c o n s t i t u t e a m i t i g a t i n g c i rcumstance. t h a t l a c k of p r emed i t a t i on which might i n some case s

Each o f t he t empta t ions t o

do t h e a c t s i n q u e s t i o n may have been an impulse bu t t he a c t u a l

a c t s each r e q u i r e d a degree of d e l i b e r a t e a c t i o n which gave t h e

Appe l lan t ample t ime t o cons ide r t h e n a t u r e o f what he was doing.

Four o f t h e a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d te lephone c a l l s , t h r e e t h e making

of f a l s e w r i t t e n e n t r i e s . He may have committed t h e o f f ences

h e e d l e s s o f consequences bu t t h a t does n o t r ende r h i s a c t i o n s

unpremedi ta ted. Such lack of p r emed i t a t i on a s t h e r e may have

- V- 1

p-.

-- --

l

been i s n o t , i n my op in ion , s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e any degree o f

m i t i g a t i o n .

During t h e course of submiss ions r e f e r ence was made t o t h e

f a c t t h a t absence from du ty because o f a l l e g e d i l l n e s s would

normal ly have t h e e f f e c t t h a t s i c k pay would be p a i d i n r e s p e c t

o f t h e absence. On r e f l e c t i o n , s i n c e no charge i n r e s p e c t o f

such s i c k pay has been brought a g a i n s t t h e Appe l l an t , I d i smiss

from c o n s i d e r a t i o n any g a i n he may have f r a u d u l e n t l y ob t a ined .

M r . Herriman a l s o s a i d t h a t t h e Appel lant d i d n o t

a p p r e c i a t e t he f u l l s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e e f f e c t of what he d id .

I t i s s a i d t h a t he cou ld n o t have expected t h a t Constable Marr

would have made w r i t t e n r e p o r t s concerning h i s p resence on

C du ty on 20 March 1982. That may wel l be t h e case . But h i s

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

I

d i s p l a y s a lamentable l a c k o f o r d i n a r y f o r e s i g h t . I

Something was sought t o be made of t h e f a c t t h a t

Sergean t Bol l i n s t r u c t e d t h e Appe l lan t t o s i g n t h e a t t endance

l

book. I t would be very s u r p r i s i n g i f ' a s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r ,

i n s p e c t i n g . an	a t t endance	book,	no t ed	t h a t	t h e r e	was	no	r e c o r d	l
l

r e l a t i n g t o t h e a t t endance on du ty on. a p a r t i c u l a r day o f an

o f f i c e r whom he be l i eved f o r good cause ( . en t r ies made by o t h e r

C) I

o f f i c e r s ) t o have been p r e s e n t on dut.y on t h a t day and d i d n o t l

i n s t r u c t t h e	o f f i c e r	concerned	t o evidence h i s	a t t endance	on	,
l

t h a t day i n t h e normal way.

l

The m a t e r i a l p u t b e f o r e me i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Appe l lan t ~

r e t u r n e d t o South A u s t r a l i a from Canberra on 2 1 March 1982 and

resumed duty. Whether he resumed dut:y on 2 1 March 1982 o r on

2 2 March 1982, t he day he made t h e f a l s e e n t r y i n t he a t t endance

book, i s n o t c l e a r and I cannot t h e r e f o r e draw i n h i s favour an

l

i n f e r e n c e t h a t , a l though p r e s e n t on duty on 2 1 March 1982, he

d e l i b e r a t e l y r e f r a i n e d from s i g n i n g the a t t endance book l e s t he

-

p-.

-- --

l

compound the offence he had committed on 20 March 1982. l

I t was a l so put t h a t I should take i n t o account the

delay between the i n v e s t i g a t i o n which took place apparent ly on

23 Apr i l 1982 and the d a t e of the f i r s t charge, 30 November 1982.

I was r e f e r r e d t o what I had s a i d on t h i s sub jec t i n the mat ters

of Henry t?, Others v. The Commissioner of Pol ice. I adhere t o

what I s a i d i n those mat ters concerning delay but do n o t see l

t h a t i n t h i s case delay i n p r e f e r r i n g charges can a f f e c t my

l 1

ul t imate decis ion.	Each case i s t o be judged on	i t s own	f a c t s	1
l

and the considering i n those mat ters . f a c t s of t h i s case a r e very d i f f e r e n t from those I was I

I am unable t o accept t h a t the Commissioner had, by

O t r e a t i n g the offences charged i n Charges Nos. AFP: 35/8283,

36/8283 and 37/8283 and i n Charges Nos. AFP:39/8283 and 41/8283

i n d i v i d u a l l y , punished the Appellant f o r f i v e offences when

e s s e n t i a l l y the re were only two s e t s of circumstances, each

c o n s t i t u t i n g a s ing le wrong-doing. Elach of the offences was

e n t i r e i n i t s e l f . None of i t s circumstances was common t o any

o the r . A p l e a of a u t r e f o i s convic t must have f a i l e d . That i n

the one case two offences stemmed from an i n i t i a l offence and

t h a t i n the o ther one d i d does n o t , i n my opinion, make a l l the

offences any the l e s s ind iv idua l offences. For convenience sake

they may now be considered i n groups bu t t h a t does not a f f e c t

t h e i r e s s e n t i a l charac ter .

The Commissioner i s e n t i t l e d t o have honest men on h i s

Force. Nevertheless, no t every a c t of dishonesty committed by

a po l i ce o f f i c e r warrants h i s d ismissa l . Scanes v. Wilson,

(1942) 2 2 F . L . R . 262. Where, however, a po l i ce o f f i c e r demonstrates

by a number of a c t s of dishonesty over a per iod of months and by

h i s f a i l u r e t o apprec ia te h i s duty t o the Force of which he i s

l a member and t o h i s fe l low o f f i c e r s t h a t h i s f i t n e s s t o continue

t o s e r v e must be very s e r i o u s l y i n doubt , i t would fo l l ow t h a t

normal ly t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y would be d i s m i s s a l . The o f f e n c e s

w i t h which t h e Appe l lan t was charged and of which he was found

g u i l t y on h i s own admission cannot be t r e a t e d each i n i s o l a t i o n .

The whole must be looked a t .

Mr. Herriman a l s o submi t ted t h a t j u s t a s t h e most s e v e r e I

s en t ence which may be imposed f o r a crime i s t o be r e s e r v e d

g e n e r a l l y f o r ca se s o f t h e wors t k ind so t h e p e n a l t y o f d i s m i s s a l

i s t o be r e se rved f o r t h e most g r ievous d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e s .

I do n o t t h i n k t h e submiss ion sound. The Commissioner i s concerned,

and I t oo have t o be concerned, wi th t h e o v e r a l l good o f t h e

C Force , ba lanc ing t h a t concern a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l

member. Each case has t o be considered on i t s own m e r i t s , a l l

r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s be ing taken i n t o account. The d i s c r e t i o n reposed

i n t h e Commissioner o r i n t h i s Tr ibuna l i s n o t l i g h t l y t o be

f e t t e r e d . The Commissioner may, f o r example, be d e a l i n g w i t h

a member charged w i t h having committed s e v e r a l t imes a r e l a t i v e l y

minor o f fence which i s p r e v a l e n t and which r epea t ed l e s s e r

p e n a l t i e s have f a i l e d t o s t o p . I can s e e no reason wh'y d i s m i s s a l

shou ld n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e i n such a case . Repeated d i s c i p l i n a r y

o f f e n c e s of a minor c h a r a c t e r , none o f which may reasonably be

C) c l a s s i f i e d a s o f t h e g r a v e s t k ind , may w e l l demonstra te t h e 1

u n f i t n e s s	of	a	member	t o be	a	s e rv ing	o f f i c e r o f	t h e	A u s t r a l i a n	l
l

Fede ra l Po l i ce . l

I have given c a r e f u l cons ide ra t i on t o a l l t h a t M r . Herriman ~

p u t t o me f r a n k l y and ab ly . He has s a i d eve ry th ing t h a t cou ld be 1

s a i d f o r t h e Appel lant . I n p a r t i c u l a r , I have cons idered w i t h ~

g r e a t c a r e t h e Appe l l an t ' s r eco rd which was f i n a l l y forwarded t o

me w i t h , Commissioner. Because a s I unders tand i t , the approval o f counse l f o r t h e

I have r ece ived no f u r t h e r submiss ions from

Mr. Herriman s i n c e r e c e i p t o f t h e Appe l l an t ' s r e c o r d , I assume,

having r e g a r d t o t h e time t h a t has pas sed , t h a t he does no t

i n t e n d t o f u r n i s h any more. I have g iven c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o what

might be desc r ibed a s t h e " s i c k i e " m e n t a l i t y b u t I emphasise t h a t

t h e A u s t r a l i a n Federal P o l i c e i s a d i s c i p l i n e d f o r c e which has

s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s p r o h i b i t i n g t h e t a k i n g o f

" s i ck i e s " .	I	have,	o f	cou r se ,	t aken	i n t o	account	t he	m a t t e r s
l i s t e d above.

I have n o t had t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e Commissioner's reasons

f o r t h e p e n a l t i e s which he imposed. In t h e m a t t e r s o f Henry 6

Others v. The Commissioner of P o l i c e , t h e r ea sons which guided

t h e t hen Commissioner i n h i s d e c i s i o n s were a v a i l a b l e i n w r i t i n g .

C! I t was most h e l p f u l t o have them and i t would be h e l p f u l i f i n

f u t u r e c a s e s t h e Commissioner saw f i t t o f u r n i s h t h e reasons f o r

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

I have considered whether t h e monetary p e n a l t i e s imposed

i n r e s p e c t o f Charges Nos. AFP:35/8283, 38/8283, 39/8283 and

40/8283 shou ld s tand . On t h e whole I have concluded t h a t they

a r e w i t h i n p rope r l i m i t s and i n d i c a t e t he a p p r o p r i a t e s e r i o u s n e s s

w i t h which such of fences should be viewed.

I n my opinion a l l appea l s should be dismissed.

I certify that this and the Q ~ Q ~ W

preceding pages are a true copy o f the &+ision

Reasons for	herein of his Honour
Mr. Justice I(el9,
d h - Associate

Drted: ) P @ . -