Queensland CCC's inaction in former police officer brutality case questioned
|
Version 0 of 1. Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission has been accused of a “glaring error” in its explanation of why a police officer involved in a brutality complaint escaped disciplinary action after he quit. The CCC, responding to calls for a renewed investigation of events following the 2012 assault on a chef in a police station car park, has revealed that an internal police investigation found allegations of excessive force against the officer were “capable of being substantiated”. Related: Queensland police handling of brutality complaint 'should be investigated' But the officer “removed himself from the disciplinary process” by resigning, the CCC said. A Bond university criminologist, Terry Goldsworthy, said this was demonstrably false, as since 2009 police have had the power to run disciplinary proceedings against officers even after they quit. Goldsworthy co-wrote an academic study last year of “post-separation” police discipline processes, which found that Queensland police had taken action in 13% of such cases. The former Gold Coast detective also questioned why the officer was allowed to resign; he was aware of another case of an officer facing sexual offence allegations being refused the opportunity. Terry O’Gorman, the vice-president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, said the CCC had “seriously botched” its oversight of the brutality case, which has resulted in no officer facing criminal charges – except the colleague accused of leaking a video of the assault. O’Gorman said the video was “simply the most graphic examination” of problems in police culture on the Gold Coast, which are being examined in an internal review. “I have police officers from the Gold Coast police district in contact with me sayingif you make a complaint about another officer, your life is hell,” O’Gorman said. “I have a guy describing himself as retired police officer saying he used to shield his suspects from another police officer to avoid them getting bashed. “There is an air of impunity in which that video shows the assault was committed. The police knew they were on CCTV, and still did it, then arrogantly and blasely washed away the blood.” Related: Gold Coast police culture under review after bashing and harassment claims O’Gorman said he would write next week to the parliamentary crime and corruption commissioner, urging him to mount an independent investigation into the handling of police assault complaint by the chef, Noa Begic. The CCC in its statement on Tuesday said it had ceased playing an active role in the bashing investigation after Begic, through his lawyer, advised he would not make a formal complaint. That followed the CCC in May 2012, after consulting the police ethical standards command, advising that “without evidence from the victim, a criminal prosecution against any officer was unlikely to succeed”. O’Gorman said police routinely prosecuted people for violence offences without relying on victim complaints, including domestic assault cases and, most obviously, murder. The CCC has written to O’Gorman acknowledging that “a prosecution for a common assault and other offences can commence without a criminal complaint, however possible defences need to be taken into account”. It added: “The CCC notes that on the facts of this matter possible criminal defences were raised by the police officers involved, which were unlikely to be adequately rebutted without the evidence of the complainant.” O’Gorman said: “I wish all of my cases were dropped simply because my client might have a defence. Firstly, this is not done, and secondly, what possible defence could they have?” Begic separately received a confidential out-of-court payout from police. After he dropped his complaint, police continued internal disciplinary action against the officer and another colleague over a failure to report the assault. But in August last year, the CCC “received advice from the [Queensland poli service] that one officer had resigned and no further action would be taken”. Goldsworthy said while there was a limit to the practical effect of police disciplinary actions against those who left the service, “there can still be a finding against them”. This could be relevant to their future employment, particularly if they work for other government agencies. The CCC said the second senior officer who failed to report the assault was given community service and a “sanction of dismissal, suspended on the condition the officer not commit any acts of misconduct for a period of two years”. The CCC decided not appeal the suspension of the officer’s dismissal through the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal as months earlier the court of appeal had ruled that suspended dismissal was “a valid sanction and not a mere formality”. Goldsworthy questioned why only the senior officer faced action over failing to report the assault when the Police Service Administration Act made it a requirement of all police. |