The Independent Police Conduct Authority examined complaints regarding the actions of three Police officers, referred to as Officers A, B, and C, involved in the investigation and the subsequent trial of the defendants accused of murdering Mr Palmiro MacDonald on 23 March 2016.

The defendants' legal representatives raised concerns regarding all these officers.

Officer A interviewed a prisoner, Witness A, who reported that a defendant in the same facility admitted to his involvement in Mr MacDonald’s murder and implicated co-defendants. The defence counsel complained that Officer A did not adequately document his interactions with Witness A or disclose necessary records before the pre-trial hearing.

Officer B, the second in charge of the murder investigation, was responsible for disclosure. The defence counsel complained that he failed to disclose a letter of assistance that Witness A received for cooperating, which was vital for challenging Witness A’s credibility. It was also said that Officer B did not inform the Solicitor-General about this letter when submitting an affidavit supporting the Crown's application for Witness A's anonymity, and that he wrongly asserted that Witness A had no reason to be dishonest. The Crown Prosecutor initially dismissed the defence's concerns about the undisclosed letter. It was only during cross-examination at the pre-trial hearing that the letter was acknowledged and disclosed to the defence.

The application for anonymity was unsuccessful. Following this, Officer C, along with the Crown Prosecutor and his junior, met with Witness A in prison to discuss the situation and ascertain whether he would be willing to give evidence without anonymity. After their meeting, the Crown Prosecutor instructed Officer C not to record his presence or that of his junior in his notebook. Officer C did note their presence in his notebook, but later submitted a job sheet to the Court that omitted this information. The defence counsel expressed concerns that Officer C's notebook was not disclosed as it should have been and that his actions misled the Court and could potentially constitute an offence of perverting the course of justice.

The Authority has found that:

• Officer A’s notetaking was adequate.

• Officer A’s failure to disclose his interview notes and Witness A’s letters, while not intentional, constituted a breach of his obligations.

• Witness A’s letter of assistance should have been disclosed to the Court.

• The failure to disclose the document was a mistake rather than a deliberate act.

• Officer A should have informed the investigation team that he had uploaded a copy of the letter of assistance into the special case folder he had created.

• Officer B should have followed up with either Officer A or D about the status of this document.

• Officer C should not have omitted to record the presence of the Crown prosecutor and his junior at the meeting in his job sheet.

• Officer C did not mislead or attempt to mislead the Court.

• Officer C’s conduct did not amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

• Officer C did not state that he disclosed all the information he had.

• On the evidence, it is not possible to make a finding on the issue of disclosure of Officer C’s notebook.

The Authority is recommending that Police prescribe in policy that interviews conducted for the purpose of taking statements from prison informant witnesses should be audio or video recorded as standard practice.

Police actions during the investigation and prosecution of defendants for the murder of Mr Palmiro MacDonald (PDF 15.1 MB)