Hobart v Commissioner of Police [1987] AFPDT 1

TRIBUNAL: Mr. Jenkinson, Deputy Fresident DATE: 5 March, 1987

Tribunal Grders That:

Be The penalty imp on the aopellant on 7 July the Commissioner in respect of the disciplinary of which the appellant was Found guilty

i i e Tribunal numbered FFDT 4 of

aid the penalty in nee be that the

hes

In lieu of the penalty afore of the said disciplinary of

a fine of 3

rh UI a

i+ 4s o on .

s

+. The said fine be paid within 2 months

L386: bF offence in the 1336 be

respect apoellant

of this date.

C

Mare

SOMMISSTONER OF FOLICE

Tommissioner

him by

discipline, in pursuance

i

this Tribunal, cansticut

with ieneral

General

bb

Australian Federal Police Act. 1979. That instruction is that

members of the Australian Federal Police shall promptly submit criminal offence reports for all reported offences. On 7 July 19856 the Commissioner imposed on the appellant for that breach of discipline the penalty of reduction in rank from the rank of Sergeant to the grade of Senior Constable within the rank of

Constable,

The appellant was a senior constable in December 1983. Sergeant Robert Donaldson requested him to make enquiries at a service station managed by Donaldson's wife about the disappearance of an amount of cash - rather more than $100 - from a safe in the service station. Two employees were questioned by the appellant at the service station on 20 December 1983. Both denied any connection with any unlawful removal of money from the safe. The appellant. then spoke to Donaldson about his questioning of. the two men. Then he returned to the Woden Police Station, where he was stationed. His duty was, it was common ground, to. promptly submit a report concerning the allegation that money . had been taken from the safe. He did not do sca. Some days later Donaldson told him that Donaldson's wife did not wish any further action to be taken in connection with the theft, and that. the second of the two men he had questioned, one Dawson, would be making payments to her in respect of the lost money, but. would continue' in employment at the service station. Being so informed, the appellant refrained from making any report about the matter. He thought that there was no evidentiary basis for any charge against Dawson, and that in. all the circumstances there was no