Commissioner of Police v Tainton [1991] AFPDT 1

[aa] AF PDT 4

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE )

) No. FPDT 2 of 1991 DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant AND: CONSTABLE MICHAEL TAINTON Respondent IRDER THE PRESIDENT (FOSTER J) 28 MARCH 1991 MELBOURNE

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

1s That both charges be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE ) ) No. FPDT 2 of 1991

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL )

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND: CONSTABLE MICHAEL TAINTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

EXTEMPORE

FOSTER J (PRESIDENT): In these proceedings it is alleged that Constable Michael Tainton has committed a disciplinary offence under regulation 18(1)(d) of the Australian Federal Police Discipline Regulations. The nature and particulars of that alleged offence are set out in the formal notification as

follows:

"That on 7 April 1990, at Melbourne in the State of Victoria, you Michael Tainton, a member of the Australian Federal Police, were guilty of improper conduct otherwise

than in your official capacity in that you;

(a) pointed a revolver at Constable Ashley Leanne Giraud and Jason Connor, and

(b) pointed a revolver at Constable Ashley Leanne Giraud's cat and said words to the effect of 'I could blow you away'."

Although reference is made in the evidence to two occasions on which the constable is alleged to have pointed

the revolver at the cat, it is accepted that the occasion

2. referred to in the statement of offence is an occasion referred to in the evidence of Constable Giraud when the cat was said to be outside the premises where the earlier offence

was alleged to have been committed.

The proceedings for a disciplinary offence under the regulations must, if a finding of guilt is to be recorded, be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I approach this matter on the basis that the applicant Commissioner bears the

onus throughout of proving the alleged offence to the standard