The boss of Queensland’s Police Union has slammed the fallout from an officer’s alleged petty theft from his personal station, saying the cost was an “embarrassment” and a “gross abuse” of the justice system and police time.
In January, a Longreach senior constable was charged by his personal colleagues after allegedly being filmed taking chocolate, ice cream and delicate drinks from the station social membership with out filling out a type to declare what he owed.
It is alleged the officer stole $36 value of candy items with out ticking the objects on a sheet that might be used to invoice members on the finish of the month by way of a “cashless payment system”, based on The Courier-Mail.
The officer’s colleagues relayed their suspicions of the alleged thefts to a detective final yr, and a hidden digicam was then set-up within the meal room to movie the alleged crime.
The officer was allegedly caught along with his arms within the metaphorical cookie jar – taking candies, ice cream, and delicate drinks – on 9 events between August and September 2022.
In March, The Courier-Mail studies, the officer allegedly requested the Longreach station’s social membership if he may prepare a unique type of pay apart from the cashless system. His request was rejected and an electronic mail was reportedly despatched to employees explaining the cost course of.
In September, the officer reportedly declined to be interviewed by the interior police Ethical Standards Command and tried mediation, by way of his authorized illustration, in November.
But the social membership’s members voted towards mediation, as a substitute shifting for the matter to proceed by way of the courts. The officer was charged in January – a choice that has angered Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers.
Mr Leavers mentioned the officer mustn’t have been charged and mentioned this was an embarrassing case of “bullying”.
“It’s like last year’s Commission of Inquiry never happened as bullying of police by senior police is getting worse,” he informed The Courier-Mail.
“This entire matter is an embarrassment to policing and this is another example of bullying behaviour in the workplace.
“This officer should never have been charged and this is a miscarriage of justice, a gross abuse of the courts’ process and a huge waste of valuable police time.”
Mr Leavers mentioned senior police ought to concentrate on critical crimes, not “acting like children about someone who doesn’t put a ‘tick mark’ on a piece of paper”.
“This appears to be nothing more than a minor workplace dispute and it should have been dealt with in a professional, expeditious and adult manner by senior police management instead of wasting everyone’s time and money however that is clearly too much to expect,” he mentioned.
“The handling of this matter is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the senior management of the Queensland Police Service.
“Senior police should now demonstrate some belated common sense and immediately drop the charges and issue this officer with an apology.”
The Courier-Mail requested Queensland Police Service to substantiate the allegations, whether or not a warrant was obtained to set-up the digicam, and why this specific punitive path was taken.
“As this matter is currently before the court, it would be inappropriate for Queensland Police Service to provide further comment at this time,” a spokeswoman informed the publication.
The officer has not entered any plea and the matter has been adjourned till March 28 in Emerald Magistrates Court.
Solicitor Bill Potts, who isn’t concerned within the matter, informed The Courier Mail police have been held to a better normal and needed to be seen as being held accountable.
But, he added, there was a distinction between somebody who “egregiously sets up a fraudulent system” deliberately, and a minor matter that might have “all sorts of complex reasons”.
Mr Potts mentioned there have been processes when utilizing cameras in prison investigations, together with looking for a warrant “even in workplaces”, and that police issues needs to be dealt with by moral requirements earlier than being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“The Director of Public Prosecutions has a standard which is published which determines when they prosecute,” he mentioned.
“The first step is if whether it is in the public interest and secondly is there any significant prospect of a conviction being recorded.
“The decision to prosecute has got to be independent, it has got to be objective and has to be based on proper principles.”
He mentioned the social membership voting to prosecute “seems to abrogate all of those tests”.
Source: www.news.com.au
