Officials want secret police disciplinary inquiry hearings open to the public – but police and their union don’t

Should the public be locked out of hearings into allegations against police officers? Top officials say it’s time to open them up.

Official bodies involved in police discipline want secret hearings open to the public, but the move has been rejected by police.

A new parliamentary inquiry into how allegations against police officers are dealt with has exposed widespread dissatisfaction with the secret system and its generous provisions for police – but the police and their union support the current process.

President of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal, Magistrate Simon Smart, said in a written submission the public should be allowed access.

“In my view there is no need to accord secrecy to the proceedings or the outcome of the proceedings,’’ he said.

“A clear and transparent process would promote public confidence in the disciplinary process and indeed in the police force itself.

“That factor should in my opinion, outweigh any embarrassment to individual police officers.”

The inquiry is the third since current changes to the Police Complaints and Discipline Act were passed by parliament in 2017.

Under the current system SAPOL has a secret Internal Investigation Section, with all decisions reviewed by the secret Office of Public Integrity, but also a secret Police Disciplinary Tribunal headed by a magistrate and only serious matters are referred to the secret ICAC.

Former police ombudsman Michael Grant also criticised the secrecy of the system.

“The Police Disciplinary Tribunal operates in secret. It should not,’’ he said.

“The fact that proceedings have been heard in private for almost forty years has led to the unhealthy situation where the PDT operates as a “closed shop”.”

ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone said the system should be more independent of SAPOL.

Police Commissioner Grant Stevens. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

“It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a scheme where police are responsible for investigating their own personnel without independent scrutiny,’’ she said.

“It is important that a body other than SA Police is empowered to investigate criminal offending by police officers, and that the breadth of the OPI’s supervision is not diminished.”

In his submission, Police Association President Mark Carroll argued matters should remain in secret because this was the practice in other Australian states and territories.

He said any public statement on disciplinary matters should be a decision for the Police Commissioner.

Mr Carroll also argued for better rights of appeal for officers and speedier outcomes from disciplinary proceedings.

Mr Grant said there was also a problem with police officers acting as prosecutors against their own colleagues.

“Police officers should not act in prosecuting other police officers before a disciplinary

tribunal because there is a conflict of interest when that occurs,’’ he said.

Mr Grant said it was noteworthy that those in the system supporting police under investigation supported the way the tribunal functioned.

“The Police Association, in my experience, is very happy with the way the PDT functions,’’ he wrote. “That of itself should be food for thought.”

SAPOL said in its written submission the system “operates well”.

“I am of the view the confidentiality provisions of the Act strikes the right balance,’’ it states.

Inquiries into how police discipline is conducted are rarely acted on by government because they are opposed by SAPOL. In 2017, police were allowed to vet an inquiry by ICAC and changes were made as a result.

Commissioner Vanstone was also critical of the failure of state government to take on recommendations from the 2017 inquiry and a second more recent one.

“I was somewhat surprised to learn of the committee’s review because the Act has been the subject of two reviews since its commencement in September 2017,’’ she said.

“To date, so far as I am aware, no action has been taken to implement the recommendations made in either report.”