South Australia Police will publish details of officer sanctions online. 

In response to criticism of a lack of transparency in its disciplinary system, South Australia Police (SA Police) says it will begin publicly disclosing details of sanctions imposed on officers for breaches of discipline. 

Police Commissioner Grant Stevens recently authorised the release of information regarding proceedings in the Police Disciplinary Tribunal (PDT), which were previously only available within the internal police gazette.

The PDT, a civil tribunal overseen by a magistrate, deals with allegations of police misconduct. If an officer is found to have breached discipline, the case is referred to the Police Commissioner for determination of an appropriate punishment. 

Previously, strict secrecy laws prevented the publication of PDT complaints, proceedings, or outcomes unless authorised by the Police Commissioner.

However, the secrecy surrounding the PDT has come under scrutiny, leading to a review of the existing laws by the parliament's Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee. 

Several submissions raised concerns about the structure and secrecy of the tribunal.

In a statement, SA Police declared; “The Commissioner of Police has now decided it is appropriate that disciplinary outcomes relating to police officers are reported publicly on the South Australia Police website in the same way they are published in the South Australia Police Gazette”. 

“This increased level of transparency will strengthen public trust and confidence in the police disciplinary system and better serve its ultimate aim - the protection of the public.”

Under the new disclosure regime, information will include only the officer's rank, details of the conduct breach, the nature of misconduct, and the resulting sanction, while the officer's name, age, gender, and branch/section will be withheld. 

The intention is to protect an officer's legal right to confidentiality during disciplinary proceedings.

This change in policy comes after the release of details on four sanctions stemming from PDT proceedings that occurred between January 1 and March 31 of this year. 

These include a sergeant fined $1,000 for displaying “unwanted and physical conduct towards another employee, whilst off duty” and a senior constable fined $600 for verbally abusing another employee while under internal investigation.

While this new level of transparency is seen as a significant step forward, it falls short of recommendations made by Judge Gordon Barrett KC in 2020, who suggested that the Police Complaints and Discipline Act 2016 should require the police commissioner to issue a media statement when the PDT finds a police officer guilty of misconduct. 

Judge Barrett proposed that the statement include information about the officer's age, gender, rank, branch/section, the nature of the misconduct, and the sanction applied, without revealing the officer's name.

Notably, Magistrate Simon Smart, president of the PDT, went even further, suggesting that there is “no need to accord secrecy to the proceedings or the outcome of the proceedings”, emphasising the importance of transparency in promoting public confidence in the disciplinary process.

However, the Police Commissioner and the police union argue that anonymity for police officers in disciplinary proceedings is necessary, given the nature of the employee/employer relationship. 

Commissioner Stevens noted that more serious matters proceeding to criminal prosecution are made public, similar to cases involving other South Australian public sector employees. 

The discussion on the balance between transparency and privacy continues as a parliamentary inquiry reviews the legislation.