JUDGMENT No. IN THE FEDERAL POLICE )* ) No. 6 of 1983 DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL ) DATE TRIBUNAL : Mr J.R.B. Norris Q.C. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE i = = against LLOYD MICHAEL BINION DECISION 28 June 1983 THE TRIBUNAL DECIDES THAT: Lloyd Michael Binion is not guilty of the breach of discipline alleged in the notice dated 30 March 1983 signed by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to Regulation 19A of the Australian Federal Police i (Discipline) Regulations, and which bears" "identification number AFP: 48/8283. Lloyd Michael binion is guilty of the breach of discipline alleged in the notice dated 30 March 1983 signed by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to Regulation 19A of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, and which bears identification number AFP: 49/8283. Lloyd Michael Binion is not guilty of the breach of discipline alleged in the notice dated 30 March 1983 signed by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to | Regulation 19A of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, and which bears identification number AFP: 50/8283. 4 The proceedings be remitted to the Commissioner of Police for the imposition of a penalty on Lloyd Michael Binion in respect of the breach of discipline referred™ tovin: 2. above. J.R.B. NORRIS Q.C. Member Toker wd hie IN THE FEDERAL POLICE ) ) No. 6 of 1983 DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL ) THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE against LLOYD MICHAEL BINION IN THE MATTER of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 REASONS FOR DECISION MR_J.R.B. NORRIS Q.C. 28 June 1983 Constable Binion faces allegation of disciplinary offences under Regulation 18(1)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, the first of which is assaulting Kenneth George Spencer, the second harrassing Kenneth George Spencer, the third harassing Herman van der Laan. The onus is the civil onus subject to my taking into account the gravity and nature of the charges. As to the first allegation of assault, I am not satisfied on the evidence that an assault in law was committed. Mr Spencer, whose evidence I accept, was sufficiently frank to concede that it might have been an accident and that the constable might well not have realised that the licence had struck him in the face. It may be that Constable Binion was over-arrogant, but I am not satisfied that he intended to strike Mr Spencer or that he was so indifferent to what happened as to be uncaring. I do not find this allegation proved. The allegation of harassment is a different matter. T have already stated that I accept Mr Spencer as a witness who was telling the truth. Indeed, Mr Spencer in giving his account of events in the witness box appeared still to be angry and resentful at having been treated in the manner he described for no reason that he could comprehend. Clearly Constable Binion was over-authoritative and behaved in a manner unsuited to an officer of the force. The next question is: did this conduct contravene Regulation 18(1)(d)? As I mentioned earlier, the section has been interpreted by an earlier Tribunal (which this Tribunal replaced) and their President of that Tribunal found that the words "improper" should be construed as having something "disgraceful" and in common. In this latter regard it seems to me that one should consider them collectively to import something more than simply "inappropriate in a police officer" but something such as that which may bring disrepute to the force of which he is a member, connotating dishonourable, inflicting disgrace or shameful. In my opinion his conduct on that day was in breach of Regulation 18(1)(d). He seemed to be acting as Mr van der Laan described it, as a man drunk with authority. There was nothing apparent to me to justify his losing his temper and acting in the manner that Mr Spencer has described. I find- this allegation to have been made out. ./3. I turn to the allegation involving Mr van der Laan. He made no complaint of Constable Binion's conduct. Indeed in his opinion such altercation as took place between he and Constable Binion was trifling and best forgotten. His view was that it is childish to pursue a complaint against Constable Binion. I mention that in passing, not because it influences me but because he, if anyone, was the person who ought ot have been agrrieved. I am not sure whether this was harassment within the dictionary meaning of that word, but I am quite unable to conclude that it contravened Regulation 18(1)(d) in the manner earlier defined. J.R.B. NORRIS Q.C. - Member -