A Police employee ordered a parcel intended as a Christmas gift to be delivered to a Police station. The parcel went missing two days after being delivered, with a search of the station not locating it. An email was sent to all station staff asking if they had seen the parcel and to return it, but there were no responses. Police initiated a theft investigation for the missing parcel but later filed it due to there being insufficient evidence to show anyone stole it.
A month later, a parcel was found on a senior officer’s desk with a suspicious and anonymous note. The parcel was returned to the employee but on closer inspection it had been altered, with differing tracking numbers and labels that it had originally.
Police reopened the criminal investigation, now under the Authority’s oversight, and found there was sufficient evidence to charge an officer with theft of the parcel, as well as perverting the course of justice. However, the time limitation for the theft charge had expired. Police did not consider it was in the public interest to charge the office for the more serious offence of perverting the course of justice due to wellbeing issues.
The Authority agreed there is sufficient evidence to charge the officer with perverts the course of justice. We were not privy to all the wellbeing issues raised by the officer to be able to consider the Police decision on the public interest test.
Police subsequently took an employment action against the officer. On the evidence available to us the employment action was inadequate, given the seriousness of the offending. However, again, we were not privy to all the wellbeing issues raised by the officer.
IPCA: 22-16712