Rowlands v Commissioner of Police

[1983] AFPDT 6

JUDGMENT Ms. ~FC..L,./

I N THE FEDERAL POLICE

No. 1 . 2 o f 1983

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN : FRANCIS JAMES ROWLANDS

A p p e l l a n t

AND : THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Respondent

O R D E R S

THE PRESIDENT (KELLY J)

9 DECEMBER 1983

CANBERRA, A.C.T.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT

1. The a p p e a l be uphe ld .

2 . I n l i e u of t h e p e n a l t y of 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 e imposed by t h e Commissioner o f P o l i c e i n

r e s p e c t o f Charge No. AFP:18/8182 t h e a p p e l l a n t be r e d u c e d

i n r ank from t h e g r a d e o f S e n i o r C o n s t a b l e i n t h e r ank o f

C o n s t a b l e i n t h e P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s Component 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 o t h e g rade o f C o n s t a b l e i n t h e

r ank o f C o n s t a b l e i n t h a t component, t h e r e d u c t i o n i n r ank

t o t a k e e f f e c t from t o d a y .

3 . The a p p e l l a n t ' s c o s t s o f and i n c i d e n t t o t h e a p p e a l be p a i d

by t h e Commonwealth.

I N THE	FEDERAL	P O L I C E	1
1 N o . 1 2 o f 1 9 8 3

D I S C I P L I N A R Y TRIBUNAL 3

BETWEEN : F R A N C I S J A M E S R O U A N D S

A p p e l l a n t

AND: THE COMMISSIONER O F P O L I C E

R e s p o n d e n t

REASONS FOR D E C I S I O N : KELLY J C P r e s i d e n t )

9 DECEMBER 1 9 8 3

Regula t ion 18 Cl) of t h e A u s t r a l i a n 'Federal- P o l i c e

( D i s c i p l i n e ) Regula t ions [the Regula t ions ] p rov ides t h a t : -

"A member and is s u b j e c t t o punishment i s g u i l t y of a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence

i n accordance

w i t h l t h e ] Regula t ions i f t he member -

(b) con t ravenes o r f a i l s t o comply w i t h a

General Order o r a General I n s t r u c t i o n

i s s u e d under s e c t i o n 1 4 o f t h e Act ;

(d) is g u i l t y of d i s g r a c e f u l o r improper

conduct , e i t h e r i n his o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y

o r o therwise ;

(e) a c t s i n a d i s o r d e r l y manner o r i n a manner

unbecoming of t he A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e ;

(h) i s found g u i l t y by a c o u r t of an o f f ence

a g a i n s t a law of t he Commonwealth, a S t a t e ,

o r T e r r i t o r y o r ano the r coun t ry . "

Regula t ion 2 2 d e a l s w i t h p e n a l t i e s . I t p r o v i d e s : -

" (1) Where t h e Commissioner h a s determined t h a t

a member i s g u i l t y of a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence o r

t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y T r ibuna l has r e m i t t e d proceed ings

t o t he Commissioner under paragraph 6 7 1 3 ) [b)

of

t he Complaints Act , t he Commissioner may -

(a) reprimand the member;

(b) s u b j e c t t o s u b - r e g u l a t i o n C 2 1 , impose on

t h e member a f i n e n o t exceeding an amount

equa l t o t h e s a l a r y payable t o t h e member

f o r a p e r i o d of 5 days a t t he r a t e a t which

s a l a r y i s payable t o t h a t member on t he day

on which t he de t e rmina t ion is made;

Cc) s u b j e c t t o s u b - r e g u l a t i o n C 2 ] , reduce t he

annual r a t e of s a l a r y of t h e member t o an

amount p e r annum t h a t i s n o t lower than

t h e lowes t annual r a t e of s a l a r y payable

t o members	ho ld ing the same	r ank a s	t he
member;

(d)	. . .
( e )	i n t h e case of a member o t h e r than a
commissioned o f f i c e r -,
( i ) reduce the memb%r i n r ank ; o r
( i i ) d i smiss t h e member from t h e A u s t r a l i a n

- Fede ra l P o l i c e .

(1A) A member s h a l l , f o r t h e purposes o f sub-

paragraph (1) (e) ( i ) , be taken t o be reduced i n

rank i f he i s reduced t o -

( a ) a lower grade w i t h i n t h e same rank ;

(b)	a lower rank ; o r
Cc)	any grade w i t h i n a lower rank .
( 2 )	The Commissioner s h a l l n o t impose a f i n e

on a member o r reduce the annual r a t e of s a l a r y

of t he member where t h e member i s g u i l t y o f

t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence s p e c i f i e d i n paragraph

18 Cl) (h) .

(3) Where -

(a)	t he Commissioner has determined t h a t a
member is g u i l t y o f a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e ;

and

(b)	t he Commissioner i s of t he op in ion t h a t , a s
a p e n a l t y , t he member should be reduced i n
rank o r d i smissed from t h e A u s t r a l i a n Federa l

. P o l i c e ,

t h e Commissioner s h a l l , by n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g

s e r v e d on the member -

(C) inform t h e member t h a t the Commissioner proposed

t o impose t he p e n a l t y on t he member; and

(d) r e q u i r e t he member, w i t h i n 7 days o f t h e s e r v i c e

of t he n o t i c e , t o d e l i v e r t o t h e Commissioner

any w r i t t e n s t a t emen t t h a t t h e member may wish

t o make showing cause why the p e n a l t y should n o t

be imposed on the member,

and, where t he member d e l i v e r s such a s t a t e m e n t t o t he

Commissioner, the Commissioner s h a l l , be fo re d e c i d i n g

whether t o impose t he p e n a l t y on t he member, t ake

i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t he m a t t e r s con ta ined i n t h a t

s t a t e m e n t . "

By n o t i f i c a t i o n s da t ed 18 October 1982 t h e Act ing

Commissioner o f t he A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e gave n o t i c e t o t h e

a p p e l l a n t o f t he i n s t i t u t i o n of proceedings a g a i n s t him i n r e l a t i o n I

t o t h r e e d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e s . I n subs tance t h e o f f ences charged

were t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was g u i l t y of d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ences

- -

s p e c i f i e d r e s p e c t i v e l y i n paragraphs ( b ) , (d) and (e ) df

Regulat ion 18(1) i n t h a t on 2 1 November 1981 a t Watson i n

t h e S t a t e of South A u s t r a l i a he -

(1) be ing the member i n charge o f an o f f i c i a l p o l i c e

v e h i c l e , c a r r i e d i n i t unauthor i sed pas senge r s ,

Pau l ine Pa te rson and G i l l i a n Vine, t he reby

cont ravening paragraph 11 of General Order 2 1 ,

a General Order i s s u e d under s . 1 4 of the A u s t r a l i a n

Federa l pol ice* Act 1 9 7 9 . (Aus t r a l i an Federa l P o l i c e

Charge No. AFP:Z0/8182.)

(2) whi le be ing the dr ive . r o f an o f f i c i a l p o l i c e v e h i c l e

a s s a u l t e d one Paul ine Pa t e r son , a passenger then i n

t h a t v e h i c l e , by touching h e r on h e r r i g h t knee, r i g h t

t h i g h , r i g h t b r e a s t and r i g h t arm. (Charge No. AFP: 18/8182 . )

(3) a c t e d i n a manner unbecoming a member of t he A u s t r a l i a n

Fede ra l P o l i c e when he drove an o f f i c i a l p o l i c e v e h i c l e

whi le under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r . (Charge

No. AFP:19/8182.)

By a l e t t e r , undated b u t p robably w r i t t e n on 15 November

C!

1982, t he a p p e l l a n t adv ised the Commissioner t h a t he wished the

charges t o be d e a l t w i th by t h i s T r ibuna l . The l e t t e r was lodged

i n t h e P r i n c i p a l R e g i s t r y of t he Tr ibuna l on 23 November 1982.

By de t e rmina t ions da ted 1 9 November 1982 lodged w i t h

t he P r i n c i p a l Reg i s t ry on 2 2 November 1982 t h e d e l e g a t e of t he

Commissioner pu rpo r t ed t o determine i n w r i t i n g t h a t i t would be

d e s i r a b l e f o r t he proceedings t o be heard and determined by the

T r ibuna l . In t r u t h he had no choice i n r e s p e c t of Charge No.

AFP:18/8182 which was based on a complaint by a non-member f o r

S . 6 7 (1) of the Complaints ( A u s t r a l i a n Federa l P o l i c e ) Act 1981

( the Act) p rov ides : -

"Where p roceed ings a r e i n s t i t u t e d by t h e

Commissioner a g a i n s t a member under t h e

p r e s c r i b e d r e g u l a t i o n s i n r e s p e c t of a b reach

of d i s c i p l i n e -

(a)	. . .
[b)	a s a r e s u l t of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a
complaint t h a t was r e f e r r e d t o t h e
I n v e s t i g a t i o n D iv i s ion under s e c t i o n 6 ,
n o t be ing a complaint made by a person known t o t he Commissioner t o be a member,

t h e p roceed ings s h a l l be hea rd and determined by

t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y T r ibuna l . "

No d i f f i c u l t y has a r i s e n because of t h e apparen t misapprehension.

Before M r . R. J . C a h i l l , S.M., a member o f t h e T r i b u n a l ,

t h e a p p e l l a n t p leaded g u i l t y t o Charge No. AFP:20/8182 b u t n o t

g u i l t y t o t h e o t h e r two charges . A f t e r a h e a r i n g on Charges

Nos. AFP:18/8182 and 19/8182 M r . C a h i l l found t h e a p p e l l a n t

g u i l t y o f a l l t h r e e charges and, a s he was r e q u i r e d t o do by t h e

Act , r e m i t t e d t h e m a t t e r s t o t h e Commissioner f o r t h e impos i t i on

of t he powers under s .67(6) a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t i e s . The Commissioner, e x e r c i s i n g h i s

of the Act imposed those p e n a l t i e s he thought

f i t , namely, a reprimand i n r e s p e c t o f Charge No. AFP:20/8182,

a f i n e of t h r e e days pay i n r e s p e c t o f Charge No. AFP:19/8182

a d d i s m i s s a l i n r e s p e c t of Charge No. AFP: 18/8182.

The a p p e l l a n t appea l s on ly i n r e s p e c t o f t h e p e n a l t y o f

d i smissa l : I n subs tance t h e grounds of appea l a r e : -

1. That t h e p e n a l t y was unduly s eve re and o u t of a l l p r o p o r t i o n

t o t h e c i rcumstances o f the o f f ence .

2 . That t h e Commissioner f a i l e d t o have any p rope r r ega rd f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' S p r ev ious good c h a r a c t e r , s e r v i c e r e c o r d ,

p e r i o d of s e r v i c e i n t he A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e and h i s

d e s i r e t o con t inue i n t h a t s e r v i c e .

3 . That t h e p e n a l t y had been imposed wi thou t t h e b e n e f i t o f

any submiss ions o r evidence by t h e a p p e l l a n t i n m i t i g a t i o n .

4 . That t he p e n a l t y was unduly s eve re having r e g a r d t o t h e

l a p s e o f time between the commission of t h e o f f ence and

t h e impos i t i on of the p e n a l t y and t o t he a p p e l l a n t ' s

conduct s i n c e t he commission of t h e o f f e n c e .

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

handed down by M r . C a h i l l .

The a p p e l l a n t and h i s c o l l e a g u e , Constable Loehr, had

G v o l u n t e e r e d f o r and were performing a s i x t o e i g h t weeks t o u r o f

s e c u r i t y du ty a t Maralinga in- outback South A u s t r a l i a . The n e a r e s t

s e t t l e m e n t was Watson, some 4 0 k i l o m e t r e s away. On t h e day the

o f f ences were committed t h e two had t r a v e l l e d from Maral inga t o

Watson t o meet t h e supply t r a i n . There they came i n t o c o n t a c t

w i t h a-number o f people i n c l u d i n g Mrs. Pa t e r son and Miss Vine.

l

They had p r e v i o u s l y met M r . S u l l i v a n wi th whom t h e l a d i e s were l

s t a y i n g and, more r e c e n t l y , M r . Pa t e r son . They c o l l e c t e d some

s u p p l i e s , i n c l u d i n g some b e e r , and r e t u r n e d t o Maral inga.

The same evening they l e f t Maralinga f o r Watson a t about l

8 p.m. Between 2.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. bo th had consumed some b e e r .

They a r r i v e d a t Watson between 8.30 p.m. and 9 p.m., met t he two

l a d i e s a g a i n and i n v i t e d them t o accompany them i n t he p o l i c e

v e h i c l e i n an a t tempt t o f i n d Messrs. S u l l i v a n and Pa t e r son

who were engaged i n r a b b i t shoo t ing some d i s t a n c e away.

The two l a d i e s accep ted t he i n v i t a t i o n and go t i n t o t h e

v e h i c l e . A l l s a t on t he f r o n t bench s e a t . The a p p e l l a n t was

d r i v i n g . Mrs. Pa te rson wi th h e r i n f a n t daughte r on h e r knee s a t

nex t t o him, h e r l e f t and Constable Loehr on h e r l e g s a s t r i d e t he gea r l e v e r . Miss Vine was on

~

t he extreme l e f t of t he s e a t . l l

' E v e n t u a l l y t he v e h i c l e reached a s p o t where i t s occupants s i g h t e d

t he l i g h t s of t he v e h i c l e be ing used by Messrs. S u l l i v a n and

1

- ---p- ' i

Pa te r son b u t no c o n t a c t could be made w i t h t h e s h o o t i n g p a r t y

and t h e a p p e l l a n t drove t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e back t o Watson.

On t h e t r i p i n s e a r c h of t h e shoo t ing p a r t y and t h e

r e t u r n t r i p t h e a p p e l l a n t , a s i s n o t now i n d i s p u t e , touched

Mrs. Pa t e r son on a number o f occas ions on t he r i g h t knee, r i g h t

t h i g h , r i g h t b r e a s t and r i g h t arm. Mrs. Pa te rson conceded t h a t

some of t he touches may we l l have been a c c i d e n t a l due t o t h e

crowded c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e f r o n t o f t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e . However,

she i n s i s t e d and t h e a p p e l l a n t now concedes t h a t many of them

were n o t . The f i n d i n g t h a t t he a p p e l l a n t a s s a u l t e d Mrs. Pa t e r son

by touching h e r on h e r r i g h t knee, r i g h t t h i g h , r i g h t b r e a s t and

r i g h t arm i s now beyond q u e s t i o n .

Such a f i n d i n g n e c e s s a r i l y i nvo lves a f i n d i n g t h a t the

a p p e l l a n t was g u i l t y o f an i ndecen t a s s a u l t , an o f f ence t h a t

might w e l l have been made the s u b j e c t o f c r i m i n a l p roceed ings

under t he law of South A u s t r a l i a .

On 2 1 November 1981, s .56 of t h e Criminal Law Conso l ida t i on

Act 1935 (S.A.) r e a d : -

"Any pe r son who i n d e c e n t l y a s s a u l t s any person

s h a l l be g u i l t y o f a misdemeanour, and f o r a

f i r s t o f fence l i a b l e t o be imprisoned f o r a

term n o t exceeding f i v e y e a r s and f o r any

subsequent o f f ence t o be imprisoned f o r any

term n o t exceeding seven y e a r s . "

The d e t a i l e d f a c t s a s found by M r . C a h i l l i n d i c a t e t h a t

t h e a s s a u l t , whi le s e r i o u s enough, ranks f a i r l y low i n t h e s c a l e

o f such o r d i n a r y c r i m i n a l o f f ences . Had t h e i n c i d e n t s been d e a l t w i th under t h e

law, i t seems t o me t h a t t h e r e would have been

a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t , had t h e a p p e l l a n t been found g u i l t y ,

he would, i n a l l t h e c i rcumstances and having r ega rd t o h i s

p r ev ious	good	c h a r a c t e r , been	r e l e a s e d on	a bond	t o be	of	good
behaviour .

Although I am n o t d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h t h

i n r e l a t i o n t o d r i v i n g t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e wh i l e under t h e

i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l , i t i s a m a t t e r which I have t o t ake i n t o

account i n dec id ing what i s t h e p rope r p e n a l t y which t h e

a p p e l l a n t should s u f f e r . So t oo I have t o t ake i n t o account

h i s unau tho r i s ed c a r r i a g e of passengers i n t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e

a l though r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e weight need be g iven t h i s f a c t o r .

I n a judgment handed down on 19 August 1983 and a s y e t ,

so f a r a s I know, un repo r t ed , t h e Federa l Court o f A u s t r a l i a ,

Neaves J , h e l d t h a t t h e exp re s s ion " d i s g r a c e f u l o r improper

conduct" i n Regula t ion 18 (1) (d) of t he Regula t ions i n c l u d e s

conduct which, whi le answering t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f d i s g r a c e f u l

o r improper conduct a l s o amounts t o a b reach of t h e c r i m i n a l

law. A l l an I t fo l lows v . Commissioner of A u s t r a l i a n Fede ra l P o l i c e .

t h a t t he course adopted i n charg ing t h e

a p p e l l a n t w i t h a d i s c i p l i n a r y of fence i s s a n c t i o n e d by t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n b u t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , i t seems t o me t o be g e n e r a l l y

i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t f a c t s which prima f a c i e invo lve an appa ren t ly

s e r i o u s b reach o f t he c r i m i n a l law should be d e a l t w i th n o t i n

accordance w i t h t h a t law b u t a s a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence o r o f f e n c e s .

I do n o t p u b l i c p o l i c y which a t t emp t t o l a y down any g u i d e l i n e s a s t o any q u e s t i o n of

may be a p p l i c a b l e b u t I p o i n t o u t t h a t had

t h e a p p e l l a n t been t r i e d f o r an o f f ence o r o f f ences under t h e

c r i m i n a l law, t he d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d of proof a p p l i c a b l e may

w e l l have meant t h a t he would have been a c q u i t t e d , f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n

o f t h e m a t e r i a l p laced be fo re t he T r ibuna l i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s

j u s t such a case as o c c a s i o n a l l y l eads t o a j u r y v e r d i c t o f "not

g u i l t y " . ( In s ay ing t h i s I am n o t t o be taken a s l e v e l l i n g any

c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t Mrs. Pa te rson whose complaint ha s been

v i n d i c a t e d b y M r . C a h i l l i n h i s f i n d i n g s . However, I do t a k e

i n t o account t h e c r i t i c i s m he l e v e l l e d a t some of t h e ev idence . )

But , more i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e b r i n g i n g of p roceed ings

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

meant t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a p p r e c i a t e t he g r a v i t y o f t h e

charges be ing brought a g a i n s t him. This was evidenced by h i s

f a i l u r e t o s eek r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t he h e a r i n g be fo re M r . C a h i l l .

I t was f u r t h e r evidenced by h i s response t o t he n o t i c e which

t he Commissioner forwarded him pu r suan t t o S . 67 (7 ) of t h e Act.

( I n p a s s i n g I n o t e t h a t t h a t n o t i c e i nc luded a paragraph s t a t i n g

t h a t t h e Commissioner proposed t o impose the p e n a l t y of d i s m i s s a l

on t h e I t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Commissioner has a p p e l l a n t . Such a s t a t emen t i s n o t p rov ided f o r by s . 6 7 ( 7 ) .

gone a long way towards

making up h i s mind a s t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y , n o t t h a t i t

might be a p p r o p r i a t e t o impose a p a r t i c u l a r p e n a l t y upon the

member. I r a t h e r t h i n k t h a t t h e form of t he n o t i c e has been

i n f l u e n c e d by the p r o v i s i o n s o f Regulat ion 22(3) of t h e Regula t ions .

In my op in ion t h e form of t he n o t i c e makes i t more d i f f i c u l t than

i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e Commissioner t o cons ide r a p p r o p r i a t e l y what

p e n a l t y he ought t o impose on a member found g u i l t y of a

d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f ence by him o r by t h e T r ibuna l . I l e ave f o r a

more a p p r o p r i a t e occas ion c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y of

paragraph (c) of Regulat ion 2 2 ( 3 ) of the Regu la t i ons . )

I no te , , t o o , t h a t t h e r eco rd of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o

t h e complaint by Mrs. Pa te rson made by De tec t i ve Sergean t Bur ton ,

E x h i b i t C be fo re M r . C a h i l l , i nc ludes t he

"I [Sergeant Burton] t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e you t o

f o r t h w i t h f u r n i s h a comprehensive r e p o r t

concerning the compla in t s , a copy of which I

now g ive t o you."

-

Nothing i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was given under

S . 7(5) of t he Act and t h e r e f o r e would have a f f o r d e d t o any

s t a t e m e n t s made a s a r e s u l t o f t h e d i r e c t i o n the umbre l la o f

p r i v i l e g e prov ided by s . 7 ( 6 ) of t h e Act. That umbre l la may n o t

be used a s a s h e l t e r , a s S . 7(7) of t he Act p r o v i d e s , when t h e

member concerned has n o t been e x p r e s s l y d i r e c t e d under S . 7(5)

t o f u r n i s h i n fo rma t ion r e q u e s t e d , produce a document o r r e c o r d

r e q u i r e d o r answer a q u e s t i o n asked by the i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r .

The method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n of Mrs. P a t e r s o n ' s compla in t ,

t he de l ay of almost 11 months be fo re a charge was p r e f e r r e d and

0 t h e d e c i s i o n t o p r e f e r a charge t h a t a d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e had

l

been committed, a l l c o n t r i b u t e d , i n my o p i n i o n , t o t he a p p e l l a n t ' s

l

f a i l u r e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e g r a v i t y o f t he s i t u a t i o n f a c i n g him. I

I n t he r e s u l t t h e r e i s a degree o f i n c o n g r u i t y i n Charge

No. AFP:18/8182 as formulated. I t seeks t o con f ine w i t h i n

improper conduct a s t h e d r i v e r o f an o f f i c i a l p o l i c e v e h i c l e

t h e r e l a t i v e l y s e r i o u s charge of i ndecen t a s s a u l t . The charge

a s l a i d seems t o l ack a due sense o f p r o p o r t i o n .

l

M r . Fairbank of counsel f o r the Commissioner submi t t ed

C	t h a t	I	should approach	the	Commissionerls d e c i s i o n	a s would	an	I l
l

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

i n s t a n c e . He r e f e r r e d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o House v . The King (1936)

1 ;

55 C . L . R . 499 and submi t ted i n e f f e c t t h a t I cou ld only i n t e r f e r e

w i t h t he Commissioner's d e c i s i o n i f I were s a t i s f i e d t h a t h i s l

d e c i s i o n was the e q u i v a l e n t of t h a t of a judge who had wrongly

e x e r c i s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n s en t enc ing .

~ 1

I do S e c t i o n n o t accep t t h a t submiss ion.

68C5) o f the Act , d e a l i n g w i t h appea l s t o t h e

T r ibuna l from proceed ings r e m i t t e d t o t he Commissioner, empowers t he

T r ibuna l c o n s t i t u t e d by the P r e s i d e n t o r a Deputy P r e s i d e n t t o

I l

s e t a s i d e t he p e n a l t y imposed on t h e member i n r e s p e c t o f s

breach o f d i s c i p l i n e and t o s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h a t p e n a l t y such

o t h e r p e n a l t y a s t h e T r ibuna l deems f i t , be ing a p e n a l t y t h a t

t he Commissioner would have had the power t o impose under t h e l 11

p r e s c r i b e d	Regula t ions	i f he	had	h e a r d	t he	p roceed ings	and	1
1, 11

had found the member g u i l t y o f t h e b reach of d i s c i p l i n e .

l~

There i s no apparen t r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e d i s c r e t i o n reposed i n 1 1~

t h e	T r ibuna l	so	c o n s t i t u t e d .	I(
,~ l

S e c t i o n 67(6) o f t he Act p r e s c r i b e s t h a t where t he 1 1

C Tr ibuna l r e m i t s p roceed ings t o t he Commissioner f o r the impos i t i on

l ' l

of	a p e n a l t y	on	a member	i n r e s p e c t	of	a b reach	of	d i s c i p l i n e ,	,
l

t h e Commissioner may, s u b j e c t t o a p r o v i s i o n w i t h which I am n o t I

p r e s e n t l y concerned, impose on t h e member, i n r e s p e c t of t he I l l

breach o f d i s c i p l i n e , such p e n a l t y as he t h i n k s f i t , be ing a

1~

p e n a l t y t h a t t h e Commissioner would have had t h e power t o impose I I

on t h e had hea rd and determined proceed ings and found the member g u i l t y member, under t h e p r e s c r i b e d Regu la t i ons , i f t h e Commissioner

of t h e b reach of d i s c i p l i n e .

The s i m i l a r i t y between the words g i v i n g t h e Commissioner

Ci power t o impose p e n a l t i e s and those g i v i n g t h e T r ibuna l power t o

d e a l w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n of p e n a l t y on appea l i s s t r i k i n g and I

l

conclude t h a t t h e r e i s v e s t e d i n each of t h e Commissioner a n d ~ 1

t he T r i b u n a l , a s a p p r o p r i a t e , a complete d i s c r e t i o n .

l

F u r t h e r , t h e Act makes no p r o v i s i o n f o r the p rocedure

which i s t o be fol lowed by t h e T r ibuna l o t h e r than t o p r e s c r i b e ,

by	S . 76 (1)	t h a t	" in	a	p roceed ing	be fo re	the	D i s c i p l i n a r y	T r i b u n a l ,	i
:
l
l

t h e p rocedure of the T r ibuna l i s , s u b j e c t t o t h i s P a r t , and t o t he

Regu la t i ons , w i t h i n t he d i s c r e t i o n of t h e Tr ibuna l" . Nothing i n

t he Act o r t h e Regula t ions i n d i c a t e s t h a t any r e s t r i c t i o n i s t o be

p l a c e d upon the d i s c r e t i o n of t he T r ibuna l i n r e s p e c t o f appea l s

on p e n a l t y . 1 conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i t i s p rope r f o r t h e

T r ibuna l t o h e a r f r e s h evidence and t o reach t h a t conc lus ion on

t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y which i n a l l t h e c i rcumstances i t t h i n k s

p r o p e r .

I r e f e r t o H a l s b u r y f s Laws of England, 4 t h Edn. Pa ra s .

281-286, where t h e procedure i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e h e a r i n g of

charges of d i s c i p l i n a r y o f f e n c e s a g a i n s t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n

England and of appea l s from f i n d i n g s made i n r e s p e c t of any such

0 of fence i s d i s cus sed . The procedure t h e r e fo l lowed i s n o t i n

subs t ance d i s s i m i l a r from t h a t which I t h i n k a p p r o p r i a t e under

t h e Act. Of course , t h e d e c i s i o n which t h e Commissioner reaches

i s t o be g iven cons ide rab l e weight . A f t e r a l l , t h e d i s c i p l i n e

of t he Force of which he i s t he head i s h i s p a r t i c u l a r concern

t he T r ibuna l bound t o cons ide r very c a r e f u l l y t h e views

he exp re s se s i n any m a t t e r r e l a t i n g t o d i s c i p l i n e .

When t h e a p p e l l a n t appeared be fo re M r . C a h i l l he was,

a s I have i n d i c a t e d , unrepresen ted . While M r . C a h i l l d i d a l l

t h a t he p r o p e r l y could t o a s s i s t him, he obvious ly remained a t

0 a d i sadvantage . Given n o t i c e by t h e Commissioner pu r suan t t o

S . 6 7 ( 7 ) of the Act t h a t t he Commissioner was cons ide r ing

d i s m i s s a l a s an a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y and i n v i t e d t o make a

w r i t t e n s t a t emen t t o be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n

of p e n a l t y , "I wish t o adv ise t he Commissioner t h a t 1 w i l l be t h e a p p e l l a n t r e p l i e d a s f o l l o w s : -

appea l ing t o the R e g i s t r a r of t he T r ibuna l i n

accordance w i t h S e c t i o n 68 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."

In ev idence be fo re me he exp la ined h i s response t o t h e Commissionerf S

n o t i c e a s f o l l o w s : -

"I	asked Se rgean t Hewitson when he gave t h a t t o
me	'What do I do? ' He s a i d , ' I f you a r e going
t o	a p p e a l , j u s t p u t your reasons i n f o r appea l .

That i s i t , b u t you have t o do i t w i t h l n 7 days. '

I must have misunderstood t h a t p a r t of i t . . , I I

The response was h a r d l y c a l c u l a t e d t o d e t e r t h e

~ o m m i s s i o n e r rrom I n evidence be fo re imposing t h e p e n a l t y he thought a p p r o p r i a t e .

me t h e a p p e l l a n t gave h i s age a s

4 3 . He i s mar r i ed w i th two c h i l d r e n , on ly one of whom i s

dependant on him. A summary a f h i s s e r v i c e r e c o r d shows t h a t

he was Force i n March appoin ted a S p e c i a l Constable i n the Commonwealth P o l i c e

1973 and appoin ted Constable i n J u l y 1 9 7 4 . He

was promoted t o Constable F i r s t Class on 19 August 1976 and

advanced t o t he grade of Sen io r Constable on 19 October 1 9 7 9 .

He en joys working i n i s o l a t e d and remote a r e a s and I formed the

op in ion , l i s t e n i n g t o him, t h a t he was e s p e c i a l l y s u i t e d f o r

t h a t s o r t o f work. He d e s c r i b e d h i s f e e l i n g s f o r h i s p o s i t i o n

i n t h e fo l l owing way:-

"I l i k e t h e job. I t i s more than a job t o me,

i t i s something s p e c i a l . I en joy doing i t and i t

i s s o r t o f p a r t o f me. For 10 y e a r s I have been

doing i t now and, a s I s a y , I en joy doing i t . "

He gave ev idence of t he s t r a i n which t h e long de l ay i n

f i n a l i s a t i o n of t he m a t t e r had caused nim. He exp re s sed deep

c o n t r i t i o n f o r t he o f f ences and I accep ted t h a t he was s i n c e r e .

He desc r ibed s a i d , became the work of t he "Maralinga S h i f t " . Lone l ine s s , he

more acu t e dur lng t h e f i r s t week and l a s t week of

each t o u r .

Sergean t Cooper, g i v i n g evidence b e f o r e me, d e s c r i ~ e d

t h e a p p e l l a n t a s " smar t ly t u rned o u t a t a l l t imes . Techn ica l l y

competent , e f f i c i e n t , knows h l s job, has good leadership

qualities and he s p e l l s o u t what he wants from h i s s h i f t and

g e t s i t ." He d e s c r i b e d a b-omb hoax i n c i d e n t where t h e a p p e l l a n t

had behaved c r e d i t a b l y . He spoke of an i n c i d e n t where A l r Chief

Marshal S i r N e v i l l e McNamara had d e s c r i b e d t h e a p p e l l a n t f S

s h i f t which he had seen on du ty when on a t o u r of i n s p e c t i o n

a s t h e most s m a r t l y t u r n e d o u t t h a t he had e v e r seen .

Impress ive r e f e r e n c e s were p l a c e d be fo re me. In one i t

was s a i d of t he a p p e l l a n t ,

"He i s regarded a s a very c o n s c i e n t i o u s s u p e r v i s o r

whose hones ty I have neve r hea rd ques t i oned . He

i s a s i n c e r e man and bo th he and h i s w i f e f i t i n

w e l l i n t h e community l i f e exper ienced i n i s o l a t e d

a r e a s . "

Of much more s i g n i f i c a n c e a r e two assessments o f t h e

C a p p e l l a n t p r epa red by Se rgean t Cooper. In an assessment p r epa red

on o r s h o r t l y b e f o r e 2 1 A p r i l 1982 Sergean t Cooper summarised h i s

view of t h e a p p e l l a n t a s fo l lows :-

"A c h e e r f u l , l o y a l , and consc i en t ious member w i t h

a commanding and po l icemanl ike appearance, S e n i o r

Constable Rowlands pos se s se s the i n t e l l i g e n c e and

a b i l i t y t o become an a s s e t t o t he Force i n a r e a s

o t h e r than p r o t e c t i v e s e c u r i t y . C u r r e n t l y awa i t i ng

t h e outcome of a number of d i s c i p l i n a r y c h a r g e s ,

he has n o t al lowed h i s obvious a n x i e t y t o a f f e c t

h i s running of a s h i f t and c a r r y i n g o u t h i s d u t i e s .

He i s c u r r e n t l y s tudy ing t o s i t the f i n a l two

segments o f t he S e r g e a n t ' s examinat ion."

Almost a y e a r l a t e r he s a i d i n a second assessment : -

"Technica l ly competent i n h i s p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d ,

S/C Rowlands has con t inued t o show sound l e a d e r s h i p

q u a l i t i e s and h a s , i n h i s t u r n - o u t , p r e s e n t e d an

example which could w e l l be fol lowed by o t h e r members.

He has n o t ev inced any g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n t r a n s f e r t o

t he gene ra l d u t i e s f i e l d , a l t hough he undoubtedly

p o s s e s s e s the i n t e l l e c t t o succeed i n t h a t a r e a .

Desp i te t h e f a c t t h a t a 1 7 month. o l d d i s c i p l i n a r y

m a t t e r a g a i n s t him remains unf i n a l i s e d , he con t inues

t o conduct h imse l f w i t h cons ide rab l e f o r t i t u d e i n

t h e f ace of what can only be a s eve re mental burden."

Having had the oppor tun i ty t o observe t h e a p p e l l a n t

g i v i n g ev idence , I d i d n o t form so h igh an op in ion of h i s

i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y a s has Sergean t Cooper. N e v e r t h e l e s s , I

see no reason t o doubt any o f the o t h e r comments made by Se rgean t

Cooper i n t he two summaries j u s t quoted. They have been of much

a s s i s t a n c e t o me ch ing t h e conc lus ion which I have

u l t i m a t e l y a r r i v e d a t . I n p a r t i c u l a r , they e s t a b l i s h - t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t ha s con t inued t o perform h i s d u t i e s under s t r e s s

and wi thou t any apparen t d i s c r e d i t t o t h e Force of which he i s

a member. They s e r v e a l s o t o show t h a t i t is most u n l i k e l y

t h a t he w i l l , now t h a t he has been found g u i l t y of d i s c i p l i n a r y

o f f e n c e s , "go bad". The measure o f h i s c o n t r i t i o n may be w e l l

gauged by h i s subsequent conduct .

I do n o t know what m a t e r i a l s t he Commissioner took i n t o

account i n imposing t h e p e n a l t y which he d id . Again i t would

be most d e s i r a b l e i f I had been made aware of h i s r ea sons . I

assume t h a t he had the a p p e l l a n t ' s s e r v l c e r eco rd a v a i l a b l e t o

him and t h a t he had h i s two assessments t o which I have r e f e r r e d .

What t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d was very wrong and he accep t s t h a t .

Neve r the l e s s , i t invo lves no s l i g h t e s t approva l of what he has

done t o s ay t h a t h i s a c t i o n s were, i n t h e c i r cums tances ,

unde r s t andab le . The c l o s e p h y s i c a l p rox imi ty of a young woman

i n c i rcumstances where a c c i d e n t a l more o r l e s s i n t i m a t e touch ing

was a lmost I n e v i t a b l e l e d , I am s a t i s f i e d , t o an a l l too human

i f r e p r e h e n s i b l e r e s u l t , g iven t h a t t he a p p e l l a n t had drunk more

b e e r than he shou ld have.

I accep t t h e s t a t emen t made by M o f f i t t P , wi th whom

Keynolds and Glass JJA agreed i n Commissioner of P o l i c e v. Gordon

[l9811 1 N.S.W.L.R. 675 a t p.688 t h a t ,

"The c o n v i c t i o n of a member of t he [New South

Wales P o l l c e ] Force i s prima f a c i e inconsistent

wi th t he performance of h i s o f f i c e r e l a t i n g t o

t he enforcement o f the law."

The f a c t remains , however, t h a t t he a p p e l l a n t has n o t been

conv ic t ed of an of fence due t o the course which t he se p roceed ings

have taken . Some r ega rd may a l s o be had t o t he n a t u r e of t he

d u t i e s whlch ne has been performing throughout h i s s e r v i c e a s a

p o l i c e o f f i c e r . He has rendered and w i l l , i f given the

o p p o r t u n i t y , I am s a t i s f i e d , con t inue t o r ende r s u p e r i o r s e r v i c e .

Th ls i s c l e a r l v a case where t h e long de l ay i n instituting

proceed ings a g a i n s t h i m may be taken i n t o account .

In a l l t h e c i rcumstances I t h i n k the p rope r course i s

t o uphold t h e appea l and t o s u b s t i t u t e f o r t he p e n a l t y o f

d i s m i s s a l t he p e n a l t y ok r educ t ion i n rank from t h e grade of

S e n i o r Constable w i t h i n t he rank of Constable t o t h e grade of

Constable w i t h i n t h e rank of Constable .

-

1

I c e r t i f y tha t t h i s and the '.jb'+eeo

preceding pages a r e a COPY of the '

c ; C , ~ y \

Reasons f o r & t herein of h i s iionol'-' .

M r . J u s t i c e KC$

\

8	4 t w p -	i
Associate	I

6 '&crmle~, 1%3

Dated: 7

l