Commissioner of Police v Ninness [1982] AFPDT 2

Commissioner of Police v Ninness [1982] AFPDT 2

The Commissioner failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, that Detective Sergeant Ninness intimidated Mr Kirkpatrick or threatened that he would be charged with negligent driving unless he admitted liability or signed the statement. The evidence of Mr Kirkpatrick was not accepted as a reliable and accurate account of the disputed conversation. In any event, the charge under paragraph 18(1)(d) would have failed because the Commissioner did not prove that the alleged acts occurred in Detective Sergeant Ninness' official capacity. Because the identical particulars were not proved, both charges failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1982
Procedural Posture
Federal Police Disciplinary Proceeding / Reasons for Decision on Disciplinary Charges
Outcome
Both charges dismissed.
Legal Topics
['improper Conduct in Official Capacity' 'conduct Bringing Discredit to the Australian Federal Police' 'intimidation' 'onus of Proof' 'costs']
['police Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['improper Conduct in Official Capacity' 'conduct Bringing Discredit to the Australian Federal Police' 'intimidation' 'onus of Proof' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Police Disciplinary Proceeding / Reasons for Decision on Disciplinary Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Detective Sergeant Richard Thomas Ninness, by intimidation, induced James McKenzie Kirkpatrick to sign a written statement admitting liability for a motor vehicle accident which he would not otherwise have signed.' "Whether the alleged conduct constituted improper conduct in Detective Sergeant Ninness' official capacity under paragraph 18(1)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations." 'Whether the alleged conduct brought discredit to the reputation of the Australian Federal Police under paragraph 18(1)(g) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations.' 'Whether the applicable standard of proof was satisfied having regard to the seriousness of the allegations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, that Detective Sergeant Ninness intimidated Mr Kirkpatrick or threatened that he would be charged with negligent driving unless he admitted liability or signed the statement. The evidence of Mr Kirkpatrick was not accepted as a reliable and accurate account of the disputed conversation. In any event, the charge under paragraph 18(1)(d) would have failed because the Commissioner did not prove that the alleged acts occurred in Detective Sergeant Ninness' official capacity. Because the identical particulars were not proved, both charges failed.

Court Disposition

Both charges dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss both charges against Sergeant Ninness.' 'I order that the Commissioner pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings incurred by Sergeant Ninness.' 'Liberty to apply in respect of costs if the parties cannot reach agreement on quantum and question of costs.']