‘Puzzling and unfortunate’: Tribunal finds CCC cop was ‘whistleblower’

A senior Crime and Corruption Commission detective did not inappropriately access files into his internal investigation, a tribunal has found.

Detective Inspector Geoff Acreman.

A senior Crime and Corruption Commission detective did not inappropriately access files into his internal investigation, a tribunal has found.

Detective Inspector Geoff Acreman was investigated internally after a man selling an oven made claims the senior officer verbally abused him and grabbed him by the throat while off duty.

Most of the man’s claims were not substantiated but Det Insp Acreman was found to have inappropriately looked the man up on the police QPRIME database after the incident.

The saga, which has been ongoing since 2015, was the subject of a recent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision after the detective appealed a number of previous grounds.

The Tribunal found Det Insp Acreman should not have been charged or demoted after he accessed files relating to an internal investigation into the incident, agreeing he acted as a “whistleblower” when he discovered they’d been inappropriately stored.

The Tribunal heard that an argument erupted when Det Insp Acreman and his wife declined to buy an oven at a home in Brisbane in 2015. Det Insp Acreman did not report the incident but the seller did – resulting in an internal investigation.

The investigation found Det Insp Acreman improperly looked up the man on the police database, with the Tribunal saying he should not have despite his explanation he was worried the man could be a domestic violence offender.

The following January, Det Insp Acreman inadvertently accessed files from his internal investigation – including witness statements – read them and emailed them to his private email address.

Det Insp Acreman explained he emailed the documents to his own email as evidence they’d been inappropriately stored, saying he feared they would be deleted from the system.

The detective was permanently demoted to the rank of senior sergeant. The demotion was later reduced to a 12 month period on appeal.

However, in its latest decision, the Tribunal found he had not inappropriately accessed the files and that, in any case, if he had been found to have done so he should only have been demoted for three months.

The tribunal found the detective’s actions amounted to a public information disclosure.

“We consider it both puzzling and unfortunate that actions taken to report evidence of serious issues resulted in the bringing of the … disciplinary charge against Mr Acreman,” the Tribunal found.

“The commonly used adage of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ seems apt here.”