R v PURCELL [2010] NSWDC 98

R v PURCELL [2010] NSWDC 98

The offender, a senior police officer, committed misconduct in public office by deliberately disobeying a direct order regarding disclosure to the media. He also misled the Police Integrity Commission at a private hearing by omitting reference to a relevant conversation. While the offences were serious, they did not involve personal benefit or deliberate falsehoods, the offender showed remorse, and suffered significant extra-curial punishment. As such, financial and community-based penalties were appropriate rather than custodial sentences.

Parties
Prosecutor: The Crown; Offender: Adam Michael Purcell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence
Outcome
Offender fined and ordered to undertake community service; no custodial sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Misconduct in Public Office, Misleading Evidence, Police Integrity Commission, Police Officer Disciplinary Offences
Criminal Law Misconduct in Public Office Misleading Evidence Police Integrity Commission Police Officer Disciplinary Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecutor

Adam Michael Purcell

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offender committed the offence of misconduct in a public office by disobeying a senior officer's directive on media disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the offender misled the Police Integrity Commission during a private hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The offender, a senior police officer, committed misconduct in public office by deliberately disobeying a direct order regarding disclosure to the media. He also misled the Police Integrity Commission at a private hearing by omitting reference to a relevant conversation. While the offences were serious, they did not involve personal benefit or deliberate falsehoods, the offender showed remorse, and suffered significant extra-curial punishment. As such, financial and community-based penalties were appropriate rather than custodial sentences.

Court Disposition

Offender fined and ordered to undertake community service; no custodial sentence imposed.

Orders

  • For the common law offence of misconduct in a public office the offender is fined $2,000.
  • For the offence of misleading Police Integrity Commission he is ordered to perform 200 hours community service.