- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 24 November 2000
Cronulla Police Investigation
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 16 of 22
| Next Item »
About this Item
Speakers - Kerr Mr Malcolm
Business - Private Members Statements
|
Page: 10907
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [4.35 p.m.]: I echo the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Auburn. I want to talk tonight about an incident that relates to police resources at Cronulla police station. It commenced on 4 and 5 April 1998 when police attached to Sutherland Local Area Command and surrounding commands arrested and charged approximately 10 males in the vicinity of McDonald's at Menai. Those males were charged with offences including assaulting police, resisting arrest and violent disorder. During the arrest the Police Dog Squad was utilised, as were other police groups, such as the Highway Patrol. Subsequent to that the matter came before the Local Court at the Downing Centre and the charges were dismissed.
Mr Nagle: They obviously had a good lawyer.
Mr KERR: They may have had a good lawyer. I will not enter into that except to say that, having read the transcript, I have serious concerns in relation to that matter. I would be happy to talk to the honourable member for Menai about those concerns. During the early hours of 5 April, one of the alleged offenders made a complaint that he had been assaulted by police and bitten by a police dog. That complaint was referred to the Ombudsman's Office and an internal inquiry commenced. For the purposes of this matter I will refer to that as inquiry mark I. When completed, the results of inquiry mark I were forwarded, through the normal chain, back to the Ombudsman's Office. The inquiry was sent back to Sutherland for re-investigation.
Police then commenced another inquiry into the complaint, mark II, which supported the results of inquiry mark I, and forwarded the matter back to the Ombudsman's Office. Once again, the Ombudsman's Office was unhappy with inquiry mark II and a task force was formed to investigate the complaints. It was headed by senior commissioned officers, as well as two detective sergeants. This inquiry was conducted from Cronulla Detectives Office. This took up much of the personnel and resources of Cronulla police. Inquiry mark II involved the re-interviewing of all police witnesses. A number of complaints were then made to the Ombudsman's Office about the manner in which inquiry mark II had been conducted.
At the time of this inquiry, there was also an ongoing investigation into the murder of a service station attendant. It would be interesting to know whether the experience and expertise of the officers involved in the internal inquiry were utilised in relation to the murder inquiry. In fact, it would be interesting to compare the amount of police resources used in relation to the ongoing murder inquiry with those used in relation to the ongoing police internal inquiry. A number of police officers who were being investigated suffered severe stress and their health was dramatically affected.
Today, 2½ years have elapsed since the complaint was made. I have to say, in what is perhaps the understatement of the century, that the manner in which the Police Service investigates itself clearly requires greater expedition. I will be interested to note when the inquiry will be completed. It would be ironic if more complaints were made and inquiry mark X were set up, and so on. There has to be a finalisation of this matter. It was not a complex fraud case but one in which the facts fell within a very short compass. It is time justice was done—as honourable members know, justice delayed is justice denied. I informed the Minister for Police that I would be making this statement and I urge him to obtain a copy of the court papers in relation to this matter and to report on what is happening. The livelihood and health of experienced police officers is being affected.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:30:52 : Update this page