Police hindering criminal inquiries into fellow cops, ICAC reveals

Investigations into the conduct of some SA Police officers have been hindered by fellow cops refusing to co-operate with the state’s anti-corruption commission, a new report reveals.

Criminal investigations into the conduct of SA Police officers have been hindered by fellow officers refusing to co-operate with the state’s anti-corruption commission, a new report reveals.

Some members of the force are more interested in “protecting their fellow officers than upholding and enforcing the law,” outgoing Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Ann Vanstone has revealed in a report tabled in state parliament on Tuesday.

She recommended the state government give ICAC the power to direct a public officer, who is a potential witness in an investigation, to provide an affidavit to commission investigators, with any refusal subject to penalty.

The document laid bare a culture among some officers of refusing to provide witness statements, via affidavits, to ICAC investigators inquiring into allegations against other SAPOL members.

South Australian Police headquarters in Adelaide. Picture: Matt Loxton

She highlighted one investigation, conducted by the former ICAC, in which two police officers had allegedly assaulted a member of the public during and after an arrest.

“In that investigation, several SAPOL officers who were potential witnesses to the conduct, or the surrounding circumstances, refused to provide affidavits to commission investigators,” Ms Vanstone wrote.

“This meant investigators were unable to consider the entirety of the circumstances when deciding whether or not to recommend a referral for prosecution.”

Ms Vanstone said this was one of multiple instances of officers refusing to provide affidavits in relation to investigations against colleagues.

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Ann Vanstone. Picture Tony Lewis Photography

She also noted that on some occasions when officers had provided affidavits about incidents involving colleagues, they expressly stated they had done so under duress, which “does not display the impartiality required” by police.

“The overriding impression these refusals and indications of duress leave is that some SAPOL officers are more interested in protecting their fellow officers than upholding and enforcing the law,” Ms Vanstone said.

“If allowed to continue, this practice could be insidious.”

Ms Vanstone said it could also “lead to the erosion of confidence and trust in SAPOL in the community”.

“If this were just about camaraderie, it would be commendable,” she said.

“Unfortunately, it appears to have developed into a code of ignoring poor conduct by other officers, including criminal and corrupt conduct, in breach of a duty to uphold and enforce the law.

“Imagine a member of the community alleging that a SAPOL officer has committed an offence against them, only to find out that other SAPOL officers present at the incident have refused to assist in any investigation, those officers being the very persons the community expects to uphold and enforce the law.”

Ms Vanstone said the community “quite rightly expects and deserves much better”.

Attorney-General Kyam Maher said Ms Vanstone’s recommendation would be referred to the chief executive of the Attorney-General’s Department and to Mr Stevens “to consider the recommendation and provide advice to the state government”.

An SA Police spokesperson said SAPOL had considered the report and “does not wish to provide any comment”.

“Its recommendation is noted and SAPOL looks forward to being consulted should any proposed changes result,” they said.