However, the Assistant Commissioner went on to direct that an admonishment notice was the most appropriate action considering the time since the conduct (16 months), the subject officers subsequent promotion, and the fact that the subject officer ultimately submitted to a PBT without resistance. Police Conduct Unit. This included failing to consider use of force forms, historical running sheets and secondary lab tests (to confirm a negative primary test). allegations of serious criminality involving Victoria Police employees, allegations of serious corruption involving Victoria Police employees, issues posing a significant reputational risk to Victoria Police, oversight of deaths and serious injury to persons directly resulting from police-related incidents; including police custody, police operations, pursuits and critical incidents, allegations relating to serious breaches of Victoria Police discipline. advised that four allegations of assault and pervert the course of justice were not proceeded with, however ROCSID records that one allegation of assault and one allegation of use of position were substantiated resulting in workplace guidance. https://www.vic.gov.au/copyright.html, Disclaimer Notice: similar allegations in the recent past (10 files), similar allegations in recent times and another complaint that was currently open (three files). The audit examined five broad areas including the investigation process, timeliness of the investigations and outcomes. Was the investigation competed within the time frames set out in the VPMG? Twenty-two were classified as work files or corruption complaints (C1-0 or C3-4) on closure which according to the VPMG means outcome advice to the subject officer is not required. 63 VPMG, Complaint management and investigations, section 6.2. Attempted to int[ercept] solo lost sight of same whilst requesting assist. While both resulted in workplace guidance for other substantiated allegations, as a matter of procedural fairness, a subject officer should be advised of all substantiated findings to allow them the opportunity to respond. 42 VPMG, Complaint management and investigations, section 12.2. This is not the case. https://www.vic.gov.au/privacy.html, Copyright Notice: document.write("Date last reviewed: " + dateFormat("2019-03-15 04:25:22.727+0000")), Date last reviewed: 2019-03-15 04:25:22.727+0000, https://www.vic.gov.au/contactsandservices/directory?ea0_lfz149_120.&organizationalUnit&e2b6f24a-0c8e-448c-a847-7b59d5838895, Privacy Statement: a sergeant who had a proven discipline charge (from 2009) and a recent substantiated determination for predatory behaviour (from 2016). a local area commander (generally an inspector or higher) for a first extension of up to 30 days. Family violence or sexual offences perpetrated by a Victoria Police employee; About. any human rights breach must be recorded on both ROCSID and discussed in the final report. The VPM is comprised of policies (VPMP), which set the mandatory minimum standards, and guidelines (VPMG), which support the interpretation and application of the policies. 18 Originally classified as minor misconduct, criminality or corruption. However, IBACs audit of complaints investigated by PSC also identified eight files that raised concerns about the way Victoria Police views complaints and its treatment of officers who make complaints about their colleagues. service of a show cause notice as to why the officer should remain employed by Victoria Police, drug testing (without any formal interview or statement). The complaints investigated by PSC generally contain more serious allegations such as allegations of serious criminality, serious corruption, targeted or proactive investigations and serious breaches of Victoria Police discipline. PSC has also produced a human rights ready reckoner which provides a list and brief explanation of the human rights most likely to be engaged, and outlines the key questions members must ask in relation to human rights. Both concerned reportable offences but PSC only consulted with the OPP in one matter before laying discipline charges. In comparison, this audit examines the adequacy of PSCs complaint investigations more broadly. Those reviews make specific recommendations to address issues that are identified in individual complaint investigations, some of which are handled by PSC. This was reflected in ROCSID as one allegation of Malfeasance Receiving/handling Stolen property. On review, the allegation was changed to one of failure to account for property with a determination of for intel purposes. In terms of ongoing supervision, the IMG states that a progress report must be submitted to the investigation manager on a monthly basis along with a summary of the action required to complete the file.40. Figure 4 provides a summary of the types of relevant evidence considered, partially considered and not considered in the 59 files audited. Comment on investigators relevant complaint history. Three of those letters did not accurately advise the subject officers of the allegations or determinations recorded against them in ROCSID. While the investigation was not able to positively identify the offender, auditors considered that the investigation was thorough and exhausted all available avenues of inquiry. Contact was made with all relevant civilian witnesses in 18 of the 34 complaints (53 per cent) in which a civilian witness was identified. For example, in one matter where a criminal association was alleged, the investigator only considered seven days of call charge records before concluding that there was no contact between the subject officer and the alleged associate. In doing so, these audits help build public confidence in the integrity of Victoria Polices processes and in IBACs independent police oversight role. Auditors disagreed with the decision to reclassify the C3-3 file as a C1-0, noting that this conflicts directly with the instructions in PSCs SOPs which state that if a matter was originally a C3-2 matter but was unfounded or untrue, the matter still remains a C3-2 and should be finalised accordingly.20. Were disciplinary and/or criminal charges laid? seven of the 17 files finalised as complaints of minor misconduct, misconduct connected to duty or criminality not connected to duty (C2-1, C3-2 and C3-3) (41 per cent) were completed within the 90-day time frame, while 10 (59 per cent) took more than 90 days to complete. Master of Arts (MA) with distinction in criminology and criminal justice from the University of the Fraser Valley focusing on BC municipal police deviance, misconduct, and corruption. If no: Reason for disagreeing with the number of allegations. State Government of Victoria Victoria Police has accepted these findings. Across all five areas, IBAC identified areas for improvement, which have informed this reports key findings and recommendations. 21 Victoria Police Manual Policy, Conflicts of interest, section 5 and VPMG, Declarable associations, section 2. This was reflected in ROCSID as one allegation of Behaviour Improper Not specified. The Victorian Government acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the Traditional Custodians of the land and acknowledges and pays respect to their Elders, past and present. This represents three per cent of all files in the audit and 33 per cent of the 12 files that resulted in at least one substantiated determination. reviewed the victims medical records to narrow down the time frame for the offence, audited LEAP to identify any Victoria Police officers who had contact with the complainant during the relevant period, analysed rosters and details of officers who worked at the relevant police station. While the matter may have required preliminary enquiries to clarify the allegations, the complaint ultimately warranted reclassification. A Victoria police spokesperson declined to comment on the OPP's decision, or whether it would impact on the work of Sofvu. In seven of these files, it was stated that contact was not required in relation to a work file. The issue was first raised by Victoria Police employees and was promptly referred to . https://www.vic.gov.au/terms.html, Department of Justice and Community Safety. Go to the police website (www.police.vic.gov.au) and follow the ' Compliments and complaints ' link. did not record all the action recommended in the file in ROCSID (two files), used no action and file for intelligence interchangeably (two files). Count of member complained against (as recorded in ROCSID), Highest ranking member complained against, Count of officers that could not be identified. Specific allegations are not identified or highlighted by the PCU. two contained clear allegations of corruption involving identifiable police officers, suggesting a C3-4 classification was appropriate. Did the complaint give rise to any risks that warranted immediate action? Seventeen warranted preliminary inquiries. In the final report, the investigator noted that unauthorised disclosure of police information is a Schedule 4 offence which would require consultation with the OPP to proceed by way of discipline notice, however if the AC PSC determines that the matter be appropriately dealt with by means of admonishment or workplace guidance, consultation with the OPP is not required. a reckless driving incident in which officer A did a wheel stand on his motorbike but was not booked by the intercepting officer, who also cancelled a request for assistance when he realised the rider was a police officer, a separate speeding incident in which officer A submitted a statutory declaration that nominated an unnamed potential buyer as the rider of the motorbike. Notes on those files indicated that in both matters, some complainants declined or refused to provide further information. Of the 46 files that formally identified at least one subject officer in ROCSID, 19 files (41 per cent) contained copies of the subject officers complaint histories, including 14 files that discussed those histories in some way. These matters suggest that the work file classification should be reviewed to ensure that: It is understood that Victoria Polices review of the complaints and discipline process (arising out of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission review into sex discrimination and sexual harassment in Victoria Police) may result in changes to the classification process, including the possible removal of the work file (C1-0) classification. However, the investigation concluded that given the subject officers previous admission, the original allegations were substantiated, with the action recorded as workplace guidance. All of the work files in the audit contained serious allegations. This included one file that involved five extension requests totalling 425 days. Another agency was the primary complainant in four matters, and a Victoria Police officer was the victim of the incident in question in four matters. . 74 Victoria Police 2015, Integrity Management Guide, paragraph 155. 2 Victoria Police Professional Standards Command, 2.2 Legislation and policies relating to Victoria Police complaints and investigations, 3.1.2 Characterisation of allegations and classification, 3.1.4 Identification of police officers who are the subject of the complaint, 3.3.5 Outcome advice to complainants and subject officers, 3.4.2 Registration, classification and allocation. Figure 7 summarises the recommended action in the 59 audited files.