Magistrate Brett Dixon permanently stays case against cops Andrew Allan Jaunay and Sean Gregory Hobbs

A Magistrate has ordered the permanent stay of proceedings against two police officers accused of bashing a teenager at Whyalla in 2013, saying the case against them was “unfair and oppressive”.

A Magistrate has ordered the permanent stay of proceedings against two police officers accused of bashing a teenager at Whyalla in 2013, saying the case against them was “unfair and oppressive”.

Andrew Allan Jaunay and Sean Gregory Hobbs were each charged with aggravated assault over an alleged altercation with 17-year-old on October 25, 2013, while the men were on duty.

An investigation into the incident was launched after a complaint was made to the Police Complaints Authority and later the independent Commissioner Against Corruption joined the investigation against the officers.

As part of an internal investigation the men were asked to provide signed affidavits, which were later given to ICAC and prosecutors.

The officers were arrested three years later in May 2017.

Dean Gregory Hobbs. Picture: AAP Image/David Mariuz

Lawyers for the men had argued in the Adelaide Magistrates Court that the disclosure of those affidavits to the DPP resulted in a miscarriage of justice, while the three year delay in charging the men was “oppressive”.

They also argued the joint internal investigation and ICAC investigation was unlawful and unfair because prosecutors have had knowledge of their case for the entire time.

In his reasons for permanently staying the proceedings handed down on Tuesday, Magistrate Brett Dixon said he was “concerned about a number of aspects of the investigation”, including the manner the affidavits were obtained.

“To place the defendants in the position where that are asked to make statements about their involvement in an incident that could lead to criminal charges against them, under threat of disciplinary proceedings if they refuse, is unfair,” he said in his reasons.

“They have effectively been deprived of their right to refuse to give evidence and they are locked in to a version of events that they may now consider inaccurate.”

Mr Dixon said the provision of the affidavits to ICAC was a “breach of the secrecy provision, and it should have been for ICAC to examine the defendants pursuant to their power”.

“I do not consider that ICAC can use its ‘joint investigation’ power to gain access to evidence gathered by (Internal Investigation Section) pursuant to its powers under the P (CDP) Act.”

Mr Dixon said he was “of the view that the unfairness caused by the use of the impugned affidavits here cannot be overcome” and it “was not possible to unscramble the egg”.

“There has been substantial delay, and a fresh investigation would be too far removed from the time of the event’s to be appropriate. In my view there is no way to remedy the wrong.

“In my view, to continue with these criminal charges in circumstances where the investigation is tainted by the use of evidence obtained and used contrary to common law and statutory rights, is unfair and oppressive to the defendants.”

The officers declined to comment outside court.