HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-06-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Police Ombudsman

The Hon. J.S. LEE (14:59): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about a Police Ombudsman's report.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: A constituent contacted my office yesterday in the late afternoon about a police issue in relation to two SAPOL constables who fined him almost $500, alleging that he had gone through a red light while driving through the CBD on 13 November 2014. Bill Thomas—he has given permission for his name to be mentioned here—represented himself five times in court. He said the fine and the subsequent court process were outrageous because court adjournments were done on two occasions when they informed him that they had difficulties in contacting the police officers.

The court case and then further adjournments caused hardship for Mr Thomas's business as he was unable to register his work vehicle due to the traffic expiation notice and had therefore lost a number of contracts for his small business. The fine was then withdrawn last December and an internal police investigation, released two weeks ago as part of the Police Ombudsman's report, found the officers had given varying details of the night in question.

According to media reports, the Ombudsman's investigation found the police prosecution's case was wholly inadequate and one officer had failed to provide relevant facts in his affidavit. My questions to the minister are:

1. Can the minister advise whether the former minister of police passed on the complaint made by this constituent for him to address?

2. What disciplinary action did SAPOL take when the officers were found to have acted in breach of SAPOL's Code of Conduct which was stated in the letter from the Police Ombudsman's investigating officer?

3. Police were supposed to give evidence under oath. The constituent asked for a copy of the police report and was rejected. Will the minister review the matter further to resolve the dissatisfaction faced by this constituent on the prolonged battle for justice?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for her question. On a regular basis—every week almost I would have thought—my office deals with questions regarding complaints towards police. There is a very clear process about what we do as a state when complaints are made around the police and there is an established office, the Police Ombudsman, which is able to deal with these complaints. I think it is important that the South Australian public can be confident in the independence of the Police Ombudsman when they go about the business of examining police complaints. It is a process that does deliver results and it is a process that I think we can all be confident in.

I read many of these files and I think I am familiar with the one to which you refer. I am not in a position to start detailing correspondence that I have read regarding specific cases. You may have been given permission, Hon. Ms Lee, but I have not so I am not at liberty to start discussing particular cases and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do that.

What I would say is that I would hope, by the sound of it and from the information that you have shared with the chamber, that a process ensued that did result in an outcome with the charges being withdrawn—I think that is what you said—so hopefully the affected individual can be satisfied to that extent.

In regard to internal police disciplinary matters, it is not appropriate for the government, or certainly not the police minister, to be intervening into internal police disciplinary procedures. There have been questions in this chamber recently regarding the way that works and I have gone into a bit of detail to explain it, but really the independence of the police, in conjunction with the Police Ombudsman, provides a whole range of mechanisms to ensure disciplinary actions can occur.

Of course, members of the public who have been wholeheartedly dissatisfied with the process up until this point or who feel as though there has not been an appropriate outcome have also got the option of referring matters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption as well where they see it as being absolutely necessary to do so. My job as Minister for Police, and our job as a state government, is to make sure that there are processes in place to ensure that the police are always acting with integrity, and that where they do not, there are disciplinary procedures to ensure that natural justice is afforded them and also that they themselves are subject to disciplinary actions if appropriate.

I am not inclined to stand here in light of one particular case that has been referred to and announce that I am initiating an inquiry of some description. I am happy to have a further look at specific incidences that the Hon. Ms Lee refers to. If she feels comfortable to do that outside of here, I can refer it to the appropriate authority, but I for one am not in a position to start disciplining individual police officers. There is a process to go through, and if they want this to be pursued then I encourage relevant parties to do it.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT