Repeal minor misconduct provisions
The Police Association has concerns about the provisions for minor
misconduct. Those concerns relate to the legislation – sections 42
and 44 of the Police Act 1998.
The act made significant changes to the way breaches of police discipline
were handled. Among other things, the changes provide for what is
termed “minor misconduct”. The association has identified that SAPOL
is using the minor misconduct provisions in a manner not consistent
with the purposes for which they were introduced.
Police officers found guilty on informal inquiry have been penalized
by transfer. In one instance, a member found guilty of minor misconduct
for a trivial issue was transferred for four months. On review, the
penalty was reduced to three months. PASA believes that the conduct
of SAPOL in respect of this circumstance was draconian.
Furthermore, police officers charged with a breach of the code of
conduct and placed before the Police Disciplinary Tribunal have, on
occasions, received significantly lesser penalties than those meted
out for minor misconduct.
The association’s concerns with minor misconduct are that:
- Police officers charged with minor misconduct cannot properly
defend themselves in the Police Disciplinary Tribunal as they can
in other cases.
- The legislation only allows for reviews of minor misconduct to
be carried out internally, with no external oversight. No independent
participant plays any part in the review process, and no appeal
provision exists.
- The methodology used by SAPOL to record and retain any finding
of minor misconduct is such that there is no automatic expunging,
and these matters have the potential to be used as discriminators
in promotional scenarios.
- There is an inconsistent approach to the punishment meted out
by informal inquiry officers. This leads to the potential for managers
to use these provisions to bully and harass employees, without appropriate
remedies, i.e. there is no capacity to refute the charge or appeal
the penalty. Section 44 of the Police Act 1998 provides for the
Commissioner of Police to monitor and review all informal inquiries,
findings and determinations to maintain proper and consistent practices.
T his requirement has been delegated to the officer-in-charge of
Professional Conduct Branch.
The association’s submission to the Select Committee of the Legislative
Council on the Staffing, Resourcing and Efficiency of South Australia
Police recommends, at section 10, that:
- Sections 42 and 44 of the Police Act be repealed.
- In the alternative (to point 1), amendment be made to section
42 of the Police Act 1998 to allow an employee the right to elect
that the matter be heard in the Police Disciplinary Tribunal rather
than by the minor misconduct provisions.
- In the alternative to repealing section 42, amendment be made
to section 42 of the Police Act 1998 by repealing Section 42(3)
(a) – the provision to transfer a member as an action to be taken
for a breach of the code under this section.
The dangerous state of many of SAPOL’s ageing Smith & Wesson revolvers
became abundantly clear last year. Small shards of metal, it was discovered,
were shearing off of bullet casings when these police-issue handguns
were fired.
The shards became high-velocity projectiles as they were expelled
from and at right angles to the revolvers. And the velocity of the
shards came about by means of explosion. If that sounds dramatic,
it should! The force of the explosion was far greater than, for example,
that of a shell casing ejecting from a semi-automatic handgun.
Shards – which continue to be found at SAPOL firing ranges – have
injured Police Association members.
The origin of the fault lies in an excessive gap between the firing
cylinder and barrel, misaligned cylinders, and cracked forcing cones.
Deeply concerned by the obvious safety implications, the Police Association
raised the issue of the faulty revolvers on December 3. SAPOL was
first alerted to it (the issue) last year.
On February 20, PASA explained its concerns in a letter to Commissioner
Mal Hyde. SAPOL wrote back on February 27 with advice of a project
team that was examining a number of issues concerning the Smith &
Wesson model 19, 60 and 664.
But a number of revolvers, issued to operational areas, have continued
to discharge shards of shrapnel from ammunition casings. Shrapnel
has been found embedded in plastic dividers at the Fort Largs shooting
range.
SAPOL’s advice is that, as a projectile is fired from any revolver,
the possibility of firearm splatter – by virtue of the gap between
the cylinder charge hole and the barrel forcing cone – remains ever-present.
If this is so, revolvers should not be the type of firearm issued
to members.
But SAPOL asserts that: “...with increased servicing of current revolvers
and the enhanced specifications on newly ordered revolvers...the likelihood
of splatter should be significantly reduced. The risk should be further
reduced by the enforcement of firing range guidelines.”
However, these clearly inadequate revolvers continue to injure Police
Association members. The association has received a number of reports:
March 16 – A member taking part in firearms training was hit
by a centimetre-long piece of shrapnel, which embedded itself in the
member’s left arm. Another member removed the shrapnel. The injury
caused bleeding and bruising.
March 23 – A member taking part in firearms training was struck
by a piece of casing, which embedded itself in his right cheek. His
fellow officers removed the shard with tweezers. The shrapnel came
from the revolver of another member, next to the one who was struck.
March 30 – In the same circumstances as on March 23, a member
received a cut to the left forearm from shrapnel.
One should remember that these injuries occurred at firing ranges
under controlled conditions; and SAPOL has been made aware of the
incidents.
By SAPOL’s own admission, members remain at risk of shrapnel injury
in either firearms training or, indeed, real-life shootings – from
a type of friendly fire. Also at risk, of course (in the latter scenario),
would be any member of the public who might happen to be closely positioned
to the officer firing his or her revolver.
Would it not be a tragedy if someone were to lose the sight in his
or her eye, simply because unsafe, aged firearms were not replaced?
Should this preventable risk not be eliminated, especially in light
of the many discussions, press articles, exchange of correspondence,
and hazard-identification reports that have pinpointed the problem?
In the absence of appropriate action, it will only be a matter time
before a serious injury occurs. The association will continue to expose
safety issues in the interests of its members, and the community they
serve.
