# What the Inquiry Is Starting to Reveal

An episode of [Badge of Betrayal](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1852919243), 7 Oct 2026, 29 min.

Audio: https://p.podderapp.com/2544644999/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/2fb3740d-3436-44af-8cc0-a91900716aa5/fbab9570-a7a3-4fd4-a673-b3940044b1b8/56086947-b953-4d42-a904-b4dc0050214f/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=2f1fa4b5-119b-41b5-8749-b3940044b5a4

The public hearings into Tasmania Police misconduct begin, with confronting evidence from Laurel House and the DPP. We examine why victim-survivors may be afraid to report police, concerns around the six-month complaint limit, the so-called blue code of silence, and growing calls for a truly independent reporting and oversight system See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:10] Speaker 1: Good morning and hello and welcome to today's hearing of
[0:15] Speaker 1: the Tasmanian Parliament's inquiry into Tasmanian police responses to allegations
[0:20] Speaker 1: of office of misconduct. Thank you for being here today
[0:24] Speaker 1: in this public hearing. Thank you also for your written submission,
[0:26] Speaker 1: which we've all received and read in detail.
[0:28] Speaker 2: On Friday the 2nd of October, the first of many
[0:30] Speaker 2: scheduled public hearings into TASPOL began. They were announced quite
[0:35] Speaker 2: late on Thursday night, and so we scrambled to make
[0:38] Speaker 2: sure we could sit through the five-hour meeting. The second
[0:41] Speaker 2: of these hearings actually happened on Monday, just gone, the
[0:44] Speaker 2: 5th of October. In this episode, we're going to look
[0:46] Speaker 2: into both of these meetings and seek to find some answers.
[0:50] Speaker 2: In the first day's hearing, there were multiple people who appeared.
[0:54] Speaker 2: In the first half of this episode, we're going to
[0:55] Speaker 2: look at the submission from Laurel House.
[0:57] Speaker 1: This hearing is covered by Parliamentary Privilege. which allows individuals
[1:01] Speaker 1: to speak with freedom without fear of being sued or
[1:03] Speaker 1: questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament.
[1:06] Speaker 2: Laurel House is Tasmanian's specialist sexual assault support service for
[1:11] Speaker 2: the north, northeast and northwest of the state. It provides
[1:14] Speaker 2: free confidential counselling and support to people who've experienced sexual harm,
[1:18] Speaker 2: as well as their families and supporters. Importantly, Laurel House
[1:23] Speaker 2: operates independently of Tasmanian Police.
[1:26] Speaker 3: Our recommendations address five connected systemic priorities. First, genuine independence
[1:32] Speaker 3: in reporting, investigation and oversight. Victim survivors of police-perpetrated harm
[1:37] Speaker 3: need an accessible pathway outside Tasmania Police with sufficient powers,
[1:41] Speaker 3: resources and specialist expertise. Second, ensuring that the intent of
[1:46] Speaker 3: the WEIS recommendations for a dedicated victim support team is
[1:49] Speaker 3: fully realised. We acknowledge that Tasmania Police considers its current
[1:53] Speaker 3: model fulfilling this recommendation. Our submission explains why we do
[1:57] Speaker 3: not believe that it delivers the intended separation, specialist capability
[2:01] Speaker 3: and continuity of support. Systems capable of identifying patterns and
[2:04] Speaker 3: preventing further harm. Information across complaints, operational activity, Employment and
[2:10] Speaker 3: safeguarding systems must be connected and considered together. Grooming, coercion
[2:14] Speaker 3: and boundary violations can be missed when incidents are examined separately.
[2:18] Speaker 3: Investigations must consider how police authority affects trust, consent and reporting,
[2:24] Speaker 3: including where vulnerable adults are targeted. Fourth, closing legislative and
[2:28] Speaker 3: accountability gaps. Our recommendations address the time people have to
[2:32] Speaker 3: make a complaint, strengthen the rules against sexual misconduct and
[2:35] Speaker 3: the abuse of police power, and protect people who come forward.
[2:39] Speaker 3: Serious misconduct investigation should not end simply because an officer resigns,
[2:43] Speaker 3: retires or dies. Finally, changing organisational culture and making implementation visible.
[2:49] Speaker 3: Challenging misconduct must be recognised as a professional responsibility with
[2:54] Speaker 3: leaders held accountable and people protected from retaliation.
[2:57] Speaker 2: For me, listening to these opening remarks from Laurel House
[3:00] Speaker 2: really gave me hope around this public inquiry. The five
[3:03] Speaker 2: points they mention are at the heart of what we've
[3:06] Speaker 2: been reporting on in Badger Betrayal. While listening and watching
[3:10] Speaker 2: their submission, I noted there are only about 140 viewers
[3:14] Speaker 2: on the YouTube site that housed the inquiry. I would
[3:17] Speaker 2: imagine most of those would be media and people with
[3:19] Speaker 2: genuine interest in what's happening in Tasmania. The committee members
[3:25] Speaker 2: posed a number of questions to Laurel House, which were
[3:28] Speaker 2: taken from Laurel House's submissions. The first was around why
[3:33] Speaker 2: Victim survivors feel they can't report alleged misconduct and sexual
[3:37] Speaker 2: misconduct by police.
[3:39] Speaker 4: And the submission states that police perpetrator sexual violence is
[3:43] Speaker 4: likely significantly underreported and that victim survivors may fear they
[3:48] Speaker 4: will not be believed or that officers will protect their colleagues.
[3:52] Speaker 5: I interviewed most of our participants for this submission and
[3:57] Speaker 5: I don't think that any of them made a report
[4:01] Speaker 5: within the first six months, which is a requirement for
[4:06] Speaker 5: making a complaint about a police officer to police. They
[4:09] Speaker 5: spoke about not wanting to walk into a police station,
[4:13] Speaker 5: even outside of their area. about the interconnected nature of
[4:17] Speaker 5: the relationships that police have with each other, both professionally
[4:22] Speaker 5: and in a social context. Their concerns were not only
[4:26] Speaker 5: that they wouldn't be believed, but that there may be
[4:30] Speaker 5: retaliation from police in relation to other aspects of their life.
[4:36] Speaker 5: Not all victim survivors are perfect victims. A lot of
[4:40] Speaker 5: them do have interaction with the criminal justice system especially
[4:45] Speaker 5: those who have experienced child sexual abuse.
[4:48] Speaker 2: We've heard this firsthand from multiple people who have come
[4:51] Speaker 2: forward on this podcast in relation to Reynolds and other
[4:55] Speaker 2: police officers. The Laurel House submission also named a culture
[4:59] Speaker 2: that exists inside the police. They called it the Blue
[5:02] Speaker 2: Code of Silence.
[5:03] Speaker 3: So I think when we've spoken to a lot of
[5:05] Speaker 3: our victim survivors, they shared stories about perpetrators who had
[5:09] Speaker 3: been police officers before. for a significant length of time,
[5:12] Speaker 3: who had had some over 20 years of service within
[5:15] Speaker 3: the police force. And a lot of the stories that
[5:18] Speaker 3: they shared involved hearing about experiences that that officer had
[5:23] Speaker 3: as an officer and what that looked like in the force,
[5:26] Speaker 3: which I think for a lot of our victim survivors
[5:28] Speaker 3: reinforced that it wasn't a safe culture to come forward to.
[5:31] Speaker 3: For a lot of them, they also shared that they
[5:34] Speaker 3: knew that the police force is quite a tight-knit community
[5:36] Speaker 3: and that a lot of the alleged perpetrators were spending
[5:39] Speaker 3: time outside of their work setting with their colleagues in
[5:42] Speaker 3: more informal kind of social settings. They're often really strongly
[5:45] Speaker 3: connected to the community and And there's a culture of
[5:48] Speaker 3: seeing police officers in general as good people who are
[5:51] Speaker 3: here to keep us safe. So that culture alone is
[5:54] Speaker 3: an initial barrier. Then the culture within the police force
[5:57] Speaker 3: of protecting your own. Realistically, a lot of the work
[6:00] Speaker 3: that police do is work where the traditional scene on
[6:03] Speaker 3: a cartoon is growing up, you're out to catch a
[6:05] Speaker 3: bad guy. So they band together. It's a really natural
[6:07] Speaker 3: thing for them to be doing in their work. But
[6:09] Speaker 3: then that naturally becomes how they work as colleagues alongside
[6:11] Speaker 3: each other. And whether they are doing that or not,
[6:14] Speaker 3: it's the perceived perception of the victim survivors that we
[6:16] Speaker 3: spoke to. In addition to that, we heard a lot
[6:20] Speaker 3: of victim survivors share that they don't necessarily believe police
[6:24] Speaker 3: are even aware of some of the cultures and the
[6:26] Speaker 3: powers that they hold. Again, naturally, if you've spent 20
[6:30] Speaker 3: years of your career in a certain setting, you're not
[6:32] Speaker 3: going to really understand, through no fault of anyone's, how
[6:35] Speaker 3: you're perceived to anyone else who's not a police officer.
[6:39] Speaker 6: Regina Weiss's review into Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds identified at
[6:45] Speaker 6: least 52 people who had been groomed or sexually abused
[6:50] Speaker 6: by him throughout his career. It's a horrifying figure. Obviously,
[6:55] Speaker 6: those people, for many reasons, didn't feel that they could
[6:58] Speaker 6: speak and report their stories. Clearly, from the submissions we've received,
[7:04] Speaker 6: there are many other people who, right now, are reporting
[7:07] Speaker 6: the same situation and the same blockages as maybe those
[7:11] Speaker 6: 52 people felt in the reasons that they didn't come
[7:14] Speaker 6: forward over the decades. the situation doesn't seem to have changed.
[7:19] Speaker 6: What do you think are the blocks?
[7:21] Speaker 4: Leadership?
[7:23] Speaker 6: Is it the slow pace of cultural change, which is
[7:26] Speaker 6: Tasmania Police is a very large organisation?
[7:30] Speaker 5: Resourcing?
[7:31] Speaker 6: Is it a kind of a culture of denial, like
[7:35] Speaker 6: without maybe being conscious?
[7:36] Speaker 3: I think a common theme amongst all of the participants
[7:39] Speaker 3: we spoke to and I hope I'm correcting this, may
[7:42] Speaker 3: be wrong. A lot of the victim survivors from the
[7:44] Speaker 3: Weiss report is that they didn't come forward until their
[7:48] Speaker 3: perpetrator was no longer a serving member of Tasmania Police,
[7:51] Speaker 3: either through death or resignation. So I think one of
[7:54] Speaker 3: the biggest common themes amongst that group then is that
[7:57] Speaker 3: you don't know if you're going to walk into a
[7:59] Speaker 3: police station if the person behind the front desk is
[8:01] Speaker 3: best mates with the person that you'd like to report.
[8:07] Speaker 2: And that fear of walking into a police station, of
[8:10] Speaker 2: not knowing who you're going to be speaking to or
[8:13] Speaker 2: who they might know is important because Tasmania has actually
[8:17] Speaker 2: recognised that the traditional way of reporting sexual violence doesn't
[8:21] Speaker 2: work for everyone. In 2023, the ARCH program was introduced
[8:25] Speaker 2: as another place people can go after experiencing sexual violence.
[8:29] Speaker 2: Instead of walking into a police station, they can go
[8:32] Speaker 2: into an ARCH centre and speak with specialist police, and
[8:35] Speaker 2: support services like Laurel House. Importantly, they don't have to
[8:39] Speaker 2: make a formal police report just because they've gone there.
[8:43] Speaker 2: That idea is pretty simple. Give people another place to
[8:46] Speaker 2: ask for help when walking into a police station might
[8:49] Speaker 2: feel like the hardest thing in the world. But there
[8:52] Speaker 2: was some interesting insights from Laurel House on the ARCH model.
[8:56] Speaker 6: The ARCH model doesn't work at the moment for the
[9:01] Speaker 6: complete independence. As you've noted, there are police there and
[9:05] Speaker 6: There are other blockages.
[9:07] Speaker 5: Police co-locate within ARCH centres to start with, so there
[9:11] Speaker 5: isn't complete independence there. In some discussions that we had
[9:15] Speaker 5: with police around this recommendation and whether it was implemented
[9:18] Speaker 5: or not, when we received the response that it had
[9:22] Speaker 5: been implemented because ARCH centres now exist, we weren't aware
[9:26] Speaker 5: of that. And so as an ARCH partner, we have
[9:31] Speaker 5: received no additional resources, training... funding to implement that recommendation.
[9:39] Speaker 5: And so we were unaware that that was the police position.
[9:43] Speaker 3: One of the other things is it states that it's
[9:45] Speaker 3: housed in a physical location separate from Professional Standards Command
[9:48] Speaker 3: and is accessible to victims statewide.
[9:50] Speaker 5: Yes.
[9:51] Speaker 3: So technically, yes, ARCH and the police who work from
[9:54] Speaker 3: ARCH is a physical location separate from Professional Standards Command. However,
[9:58] Speaker 3: the police who attend ARCH to speak to victim survivors
[10:02] Speaker 3: of police misconduct are from Professional Standards.
[10:04] Speaker 6: Mm.
[10:05] Speaker 3: They're not getting access to the police who are separate
[10:08] Speaker 3: from the professional standards command through the ARCH model. they're
[10:12] Speaker 3: having that just like direct involvement and then for a
[10:16] Speaker 3: victim survivor who say their alleged perpetrator is a Launceston
[10:20] Speaker 3: based police officer they are then going into a facility
[10:23] Speaker 3: that is staffed by Launceston based police officers so the
[10:27] Speaker 3: same issue around moving into a facility with potential colleagues
[10:30] Speaker 3: and friends is still there for individuals.
[10:32] Speaker 6: Yeah and as many as many victim survivors had said
[10:35] Speaker 6: in their submissions it's a complete lottery who you get
[10:38] Speaker 6: exactly And so it's the not knowing who you'll get
[10:41] Speaker 6: and how they'll respond, not having the confidence that stops
[10:45] Speaker 6: people reporting in.
[10:46] Speaker 4: The first place.
[10:47] Speaker 6: Just to clarify, what you're saying is there needs to
[10:49] Speaker 6: be a completely independent process where a victim survivor can
[10:54] Speaker 6: be confident. that there will be a person who doesn't
[10:57] Speaker 6: have relationships with the police in the first instance at least.
[11:01] Speaker 5: And with specialised skill in how to respond appropriately to
[11:05] Speaker 5: sexual violence and child sexual abuse allegations.
[11:08] Speaker 3: I think one of the most important things that we've
[11:10] Speaker 3: heard is a lot of our victim survivors live in
[11:12] Speaker 3: rural and remote areas. So obviously the police in those
[11:15] Speaker 3: areas are really an intrinsic part of the community as
[11:17] Speaker 3: a whole. So being able to access something in place...
[11:21] Speaker 3: but also very separate from that community connection that police holds,
[11:25] Speaker 3: I think is one of the most important first availability
[11:28] Speaker 3: options for someone.
[11:30] Speaker 1: You've made a number of recommendations for amendments to the
[11:32] Speaker 1: Police Services Act. I wanted to ask specifically about Recommendation 21,
[11:37] Speaker 1: which is where you've recommended that the time limit be removed,
[11:41] Speaker 1: the six-month time limit, for making complaints involving police. allegations
[11:46] Speaker 1: of child sex abuse and um.
[11:48] Speaker 5: Every single person i spoke with um had not made
[11:52] Speaker 5: a report within a six month time frame um some
[11:55] Speaker 5: of the people i spoke with had experiences of child
[11:58] Speaker 5: sexual abuse some of sexual violence during adulthood um we're
[12:02] Speaker 5: talking about a matter of years um sometimes decades when
[12:06] Speaker 5: those disclosures are made um and a six month time
[12:09] Speaker 5: limit i think there is an option um in Within
[12:13] Speaker 5: the Act, there is a discretion for police to accept
[12:16] Speaker 5: a complaint after that period of time, but we would
[12:19] Speaker 5: like it to be more explicit that in cases that
[12:22] Speaker 5: involve sexual violence and sexual harm, people do not come
[12:26] Speaker 5: forward immediately, if at all.
[12:29] Speaker 1: Correct me if I'm wrong, but evidence shows that it
[12:31] Speaker 1: can be decades before someone's ready to come forward, particularly
[12:34] Speaker 1: with an allegation of child sexual abuse.
[12:36] Speaker 5: Absolutely.
[12:36] Speaker 1: I know the Tasmanian government has also removed limitation periods
[12:40] Speaker 1: for a range of different kinds of offences. Is it
[12:42] Speaker 1: a conflict in that Act that Section 44 contains a
[12:46] Speaker 1: time barrier at all when.
[12:53] Speaker 1: Conversely, the Parliament is making sure that limitation periods for
[12:57] Speaker 1: certain really heinous categories of offending are removed.
[13:02] Speaker 2: That is an important point in the Laurel House submission.
[13:06] Speaker 2: Tasmania actually changed its laws following the recommendations from the
[13:09] Speaker 2: Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The
[13:13] Speaker 2: Royal Commission recognised that survivors can take years and sometimes
[13:17] Speaker 2: decades before they're ready or able to talk about what
[13:21] Speaker 2: happened to them. So Tasmania removed the time limit for
[13:24] Speaker 2: civil claims involving sexual or serious physical abuse suffered as
[13:28] Speaker 2: a child. Now that's worth remembering when we look at
[13:31] Speaker 2: the Police Services Act. Because when it comes to making
[13:34] Speaker 2: a complaint about the conduct of a police officer, the
[13:37] Speaker 2: act generally gives you six months from when that conduct
[13:40] Speaker 2: became known to you. Now, the commissioner can accept a
[13:44] Speaker 2: complaint outside that period if there are special circumstances. But
[13:48] Speaker 2: there's an obvious tension here. On one hand, it's recognised
[13:52] Speaker 2: that trauma, fear and power imbalances can prevent people from
[13:55] Speaker 2: coming forward for years. On the other, if a person
[13:59] Speaker 2: you're complaining about is a police officer, the complaints process
[14:02] Speaker 2: still starts. with a six-month clock.
[14:05] Speaker 6: This has been around for a while. The Weiss Review
[14:08] Speaker 6: kind of noted this as a problem. Why haven't Tasmania
[14:11] Speaker 6: Police acted on this, do you think? Why hasn't this
[14:16] Speaker 6: been acted on?
[14:16] Speaker 3: That's a really good question.
[14:18] Speaker 7: You have to ask them.
[14:20] Speaker 3: I think potentially... Police are in a really resource-constrained environment
[14:26] Speaker 3: themselves and I also think these issues are really out
[14:29] Speaker 3: of sight, out of mind when people aren't able to
[14:31] Speaker 3: make reports. And so at the moment, if people aren't
[14:34] Speaker 3: coming forward at all, they're not even going to know
[14:36] Speaker 3: that the time limit is an issue because people aren't
[14:38] Speaker 3: even coming forward.
[14:41] Speaker 5: I think I would add to that that... There is
[14:45] Speaker 5: an issue around procedural fairness and that we obviously don't
[14:51] Speaker 5: want to argue that there shouldn't be procedural fairness for
[14:53] Speaker 5: police officers who face accusations. But I think that when
[14:58] Speaker 5: we're looking at fairness, we need to look at what
[15:00] Speaker 5: are the ramifications of an allegation being made and not
[15:06] Speaker 5: substantiated as opposed to the allegation was correct and there
[15:10] Speaker 5: was no action taken. And I know that this might
[15:13] Speaker 5: be a little bit of a side issue to your
[15:15] Speaker 5: question in relation to the time limit, but I think
[15:17] Speaker 5: more broadly. looking at how procedural fairness is dealt with
[15:21] Speaker 5: when these complaints are made, it is very heavily on
[15:24] Speaker 5: the side of police officers from the conversations that I
[15:27] Speaker 5: have had with people who came forward to speak with us.
[15:31] Speaker 5: And those procedures do inhibit people from both making complaints
[15:36] Speaker 5: and continuing with a complaint process. For example, the balance
[15:40] Speaker 5: of probabilities. So you make a complaint about an officer
[15:44] Speaker 5: or officer misconduct and there is a disciplinary investigation involved,
[15:48] Speaker 5: the decision is made on the balance of probabilities. Where
[15:52] Speaker 5: a complaint is one word against another word, that is
[15:55] Speaker 5: not enough to establish conduct has occurred. And where we're
[15:59] Speaker 5: dealing with sexual violence and abuse, we are almost always
[16:02] Speaker 5: dealing with a word against word allegation. We need to
[16:06] Speaker 5: understand that allegations can be substantiated in a range of
[16:10] Speaker 5: different ways. We can look at, and the criminal justice
[16:14] Speaker 5: system looks at the credibility of the complainant and the accused,
[16:19] Speaker 5: if they wish to speak. It can look at corroborating evidence.
[16:24] Speaker 5: It can look at documentation. It can look at the motivations,
[16:29] Speaker 5: the reason why people might provide certain evidence, a history
[16:33] Speaker 5: of allegations. When we are looking at allegations that relate
[16:38] Speaker 5: to sexual violence, there has to be an understanding as
[16:42] Speaker 5: well that these allegations are not often made falsely. And
[16:48] Speaker 5: that there needs to be a recognition of what happens
[16:51] Speaker 5: when we get those decisions wrong as well. And we
[16:53] Speaker 5: maintain a culture within an institution like police that doesn't
[16:58] Speaker 5: hold people to account.
[17:01] Speaker 6: I've got one other question. When an officer resigns, huge problem.
[17:07] Speaker 6: Many people have mentioned that, the great injustice and the
[17:10] Speaker 6: fact that everything stops.
[17:12] Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess what we've heard is a common theme
[17:14] Speaker 3: is that they're given the opportunity to resign and that's
[17:16] Speaker 3: harmful to our victim survivors in itself because it's giving
[17:20] Speaker 3: them a level of control over the process as the
[17:22] Speaker 3: perpetrator that the victim survivor doesn't have access to and
[17:26] Speaker 3: has lost through the process of harm that has occurred.
[17:28] Speaker 3: So that's another institutional element of harm that then is
[17:32] Speaker 3: experienced by a victim survivor. It often then results in
[17:36] Speaker 3: a dismissal, not necessarily formal, but There's no urgency for
[17:41] Speaker 3: them to then be resolving or looking into or investigating
[17:44] Speaker 3: the claims. If someone doesn't want to go down a
[17:46] Speaker 3: criminal pathway, the police, I think, then view a misconduct
[17:50] Speaker 3: process as not always necessary because there's no disciplinary action
[17:53] Speaker 3: available to the individual anyway. However, what victim survivors have
[17:58] Speaker 3: shared with us is that what could actually be occurring
[18:00] Speaker 3: is institutional learning and there's a really missed opportunity for
[18:03] Speaker 3: that institutional learning to inform future processes and to prevent
[18:07] Speaker 3: further harm from the future.
[18:22] Speaker 2: In the second half of this episode, let's go to
[18:23] Speaker 2: day two of the submission hearings. Our podcast channel and
[18:26] Speaker 2: the messages went wild on this second day. There were
[18:30] Speaker 2: many people in the hearings that day, including the Department
[18:33] Speaker 2: of Public Prosecutions, the DPP.
[18:37] Speaker 7: As a whole, we would say that the quality of
[18:39] Speaker 7: the files that we receive from the Professional Standards Unit
[18:44] Speaker 7: is very high. When we're looking at the quality of
[18:46] Speaker 7: the evidence, we don't, in the event that we were
[18:51] Speaker 7: dissatisfied with the quality of the evidence, that information is
[18:54] Speaker 7: passed back down the line and that can enable review.
[18:58] Speaker 7: So from our perspective, bearing in mind we only see
[19:02] Speaker 7: what we get in, the standard of the files and
[19:04] Speaker 7: the quality of the files are very high.
[19:06] Speaker 6: That raises the question about the things that you don't see,
[19:09] Speaker 6: I suppose. I think your submission makes it clear that
[19:13] Speaker 6: you don't think that there's anything that needs to change
[19:17] Speaker 6: in the current system of of reporting an investigation about
[19:22] Speaker 6: matters of police misconduct.
[19:24] Speaker 4: Is that a fair assessment?
[19:27] Speaker 7: Well, we're not an investigative body, but what we receive
[19:32] Speaker 7: as the gatekeeper, I suppose, to initiating and undertaking prosecutions...
[19:38] Speaker 7: is good quality files. And that can be observed or
[19:42] Speaker 7: determined by the quality of the evidence that's been gathered
[19:46] Speaker 7: during the course of the investigation, how the complainants are
[19:50] Speaker 7: being treated and how the accused are being treated and
[19:56] Speaker 7: whether the investigation is being conducted in accordance with law.
[20:00] Speaker 6: Most people, I think, would be able to understand why
[20:02] Speaker 6: a victim of police officer crime or misconduct wouldn't have
[20:07] Speaker 6: much faith in going to the police about a complaint.
[20:13] Speaker 6: especially in a small place like Tasmania. Your submission has
[20:17] Speaker 6: argued for responsibility for investigations to stay with Tasmanian Police,
[20:21] Speaker 6: but what's your view about reporting pathways?
[20:24] Speaker 7: I think that's the issue, a significant issue in this space.
[20:31] Speaker 7: And it's difficult to say because the way the investigative body,
[20:38] Speaker 7: which is Tasmanian Police, works is often they're dealing with
[20:42] Speaker 7: two people. possible scenarios. There is an acute situation where
[20:46] Speaker 7: the frontline services are going to a significant, say, violent event,
[20:51] Speaker 7: and they are the best equipped to go there to
[20:55] Speaker 7: assess and ensure that all parties, including potentially children, are safe,
[21:01] Speaker 7: to ensure that evidence is preserved, potentially affecting the rest.
[21:09] Speaker 7: to interview a vulnerable witness and to elicit the best
[21:13] Speaker 7: and most reliable account from that witness, to take them
[21:16] Speaker 7: to places of safety and ensure that they're forensically examined,
[21:21] Speaker 7: and then, of course, to deal with the potential offender
[21:24] Speaker 7: and to interview them. So in those scenarios, the victim
[21:30] Speaker 7: may not get a choice because the event has occurred
[21:33] Speaker 7: and that frontline service is going to be available and
[21:37] Speaker 7: able to to step in. There are other occasions, of course,
[21:41] Speaker 7: in a more chronic situation where the victim has real
[21:47] Speaker 7: concerns about who to report to and trust, which absolutely
[21:53] Speaker 7: has to be acknowledged. My experience having prosecuted crimes of
[21:57] Speaker 7: family violence and sexual abuse for many, many years is
[22:00] Speaker 7: often the first point of contact, whether it's a police
[22:04] Speaker 7: officer or not, is a family friend or a work colleague,
[22:09] Speaker 7: or someone they trust. And so that person will normally
[22:13] Speaker 7: be a conduit to making the report to police. So
[22:17] Speaker 7: it may be that the victim doesn't want to engage
[22:21] Speaker 7: with police, whether the offender is a police officer or not.
[22:25] Speaker 8: Are you actually able to give any figures of the
[22:28] Speaker 8: number of files that you receive each year and the
[22:31] Speaker 8: number that you return for no prosecution on matters of
[22:35] Speaker 8: family violence or sexual assault that involve complaints against police?
[22:41] Speaker 7: The short answer is no. I think the figures that
[22:43] Speaker 7: have been revealed in our correspondence was we've received 130
[22:49] Speaker 7: matters involving offences, but that doesn't separate it into family violence.
[22:54] Speaker 7: As I indicated, we have seen an uptake in investigation
[22:58] Speaker 7: files that are referable to family violence, but I don't
[23:01] Speaker 7: know what the figures are.
[23:02] Speaker 8: Is it possible to produce them?
[23:04] Speaker 7: I would have to take that on notice. I'm not
[23:06] Speaker 7: sure whether we can. Thank you.
[23:07] Speaker 4: I had a question in relation to police making complaints
[23:14] Speaker 4: about fellow officers, so internal complaints. It's my understanding from
[23:21] Speaker 4: the process that you've outlined in your submission that police
[23:25] Speaker 4: Those potential complaints or whistleblower..... or allegations coming from a
[23:32] Speaker 4: potential whistleblower may not make it to your office, just
[23:38] Speaker 4: due to the blue code, which keeps coming through in
[23:43] Speaker 4: a lot of the evidence that's submitted to us, a
[23:45] Speaker 4: reluctance by serving officers to make complaints about other officers...
[23:52] Speaker 4: due to fear of retaliation or also kind of breaking
[23:57] Speaker 4: that blue code of loyalty?
[23:59] Speaker 7: Well, the only observation I would make is I suspect
[24:03] Speaker 7: that that would occur in any workplace, but... Obviously, as
[24:08] Speaker 7: I understand it, the Tasmanian Police have got systems in
[24:11] Speaker 7: place now where you can make anonymous reporting and it's
[24:16] Speaker 7: difficult for us to say. I can say that I've
[24:20] Speaker 7: personally prosecuted a matter where a member of, a serving
[24:24] Speaker 7: member of Tasmanian Police had made a complaint against another
[24:28] Speaker 7: officer in relation to family violence committed and I conducted
[24:34] Speaker 7: the prosecution successfully.
[24:44] Speaker 6: In Mr Coates' submission to the committee, he said, in
[24:49] Speaker 6: my many years of reviewing allegations of misconduct or the
[24:52] Speaker 6: potential commission of criminal offences involving police officers, I've never
[24:57] Speaker 6: held concerns to the objectivity or standard of the investigation.
[25:02] Speaker 6: I'm absolutely sure that that is true in the general sense.
[25:06] Speaker 6: But there have been instances, not just of Senior Sergeant
[25:10] Speaker 6: Paul Reynolds, but also of the Griffin case. where information
[25:15] Speaker 6: was provided to Tasmania Police, but there were clear problems
[25:20] Speaker 6: in police not following up. And the Griffin case in 2015,
[25:25] Speaker 6: where AFP evidence was provided to Tasmania Police, but then
[25:29] Speaker 6: that wasn't investigated at that point. Do you think that
[25:33] Speaker 6: there needs to be independence in the investigation process?
[25:38] Speaker 7: There's two issues here, isn't there? There's the reporting and
[25:40] Speaker 7: the reluctance to report and how that can be improved
[25:44] Speaker 7: or at least, you know, other avenues being made available
[25:48] Speaker 7: and then the investigation itself. And the difficulty, for example,
[25:52] Speaker 7: with having two agencies involved in the investigation is often
[25:57] Speaker 7: you're stepping over one another's toes, you're trying to work
[26:00] Speaker 7: out where your remit is. So you really are looking
[26:04] Speaker 7: at if you have... an agency who's conducting the investigations,
[26:08] Speaker 7: how do you ensure that that is done properly and appropriately?
[26:12] Speaker 7: And so really, is it a case of oversight, the
[26:15] Speaker 7: appropriate oversight, and the ability to have checks and balances
[26:20] Speaker 7: in place by an independent authority if and when necessary?
[26:25] Speaker 6: Are you aware whether Tasmania Police at the moment provides
[26:28] Speaker 6: reasons if a conviction is not going to be followed,
[26:32] Speaker 6: if a charge is not going to be laid?
[26:35] Speaker 7: It's difficult for me to speak on behalf of Tasmanian Police. However,
[26:40] Speaker 7: I would say in circumstances where it's an allegation of
[26:44] Speaker 7: sexual assault or, say, family violence, one of the reasons
[26:48] Speaker 7: we may not proceed is matters that are referable to
[26:54] Speaker 7: the credibility of the individual making the allegations and it
[26:59] Speaker 7: would not be sometimes appropriate to say to pass that
[27:06] Speaker 7: information back, it can be quite distressing. There can be
[27:10] Speaker 7: occasions where the evidence is absolutely inconsistent with the allegation
[27:15] Speaker 7: that has been made. There are occasions where, in the
[27:20] Speaker 7: event that the person presses, we will explain to them.
[27:23] Speaker 7: So it might be... It's really an exercise of judgement.
[27:27] Speaker 2: So I.
[27:29] Speaker 7: Don't see any difficulty with an arrangement or an obligation
[27:32] Speaker 7: to provide... complaint with the details of the outcome. As
[27:38] Speaker 7: for exactly what information should be passed on, that would
[27:42] Speaker 7: have to be, I would have thought, an exercise of judgment,
[27:45] Speaker 7: depending on the crime that's alleged to have been committed.
[27:48] Speaker 7: or the allegations that are being made.
[27:49] Speaker 6: And then the question is whose judgment and how do
[27:52] Speaker 6: we give agency to the victim-survivor to make a decision
[27:55] Speaker 6: about what they're prepared to receive, information they're prepared to receive,
[28:00] Speaker 6: gets into difficult territory where it would be good for
[28:03] Speaker 6: the victim-survivor to be able to be involved in some way.
[28:06] Speaker 2: If you'd like to watch these hearings in full, place
[28:09] Speaker 2: the link in our show notes. If you want more
[28:11] Speaker 2: information about what we're currently looking into and behind-the-scenes information,
[28:15] Speaker 2: you can join our Patreon page. Just search Podshape True
[28:18] Speaker 2: Crime in Patreon or you can click the link in
[28:21] Speaker 2: the episode notes.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.