Police integrity in question o

IT HAD the makings of a routine early morning call-out. Senior Constable Christopher Vincent and a colleague at the Rosebud police station were sent to investigate a report of a woman wandering suspiciously in the rain near a Flinders property.

But all they found was a car � bogged and abandoned with $40,000 allegedly stashed in the back.

What followed was the subject of the Office of Police Integrity's first public hearing yesterday. The two policemen are accused of stealing the money, and one of them, identified only as R100, has confessed.

R100 says that after coming across the car on Wood Street in Flinders at 1.55am on June 14 last year, his colleague, Senior Constable Vincent, found the money in the car and began stashing it in his clothing.

Counsel assisting the hearing, Garry Livermore, said: "Vincent said to R100, 'Let's take it'. R100 said, 'No, we should return it to the owners'. Vincent said, 'Come on, why not?' "

Before confessing, R100 became convinced he was being followed by investigators. He became so paranoid that he flushed cash down a toilet, tipped coins off a pier and hid $1550 down his pants, the hearing was told.

R100 said he and Senior Constable Vincent got $5000 each. He confessed that he had spent some of the money on alcohol and gym equipment and said that he might have given some to his mother for his board and living expenses.

The money belonged to the owner of a local takeaway, whose car had become bogged. She had left it in a black bag in the back of the car when she went to get help to tow it.

She discovered the money missing upon her return with her partner a short time later.

R100 told investigators he refused to take the money initially but in the end his "stupidity took over" and he agreed to share it with Senior Constable Vincent. They visited the car owner's house but she wasn't home and they didn't leave a card.

R100 said he and Senior Constable Vincent agreed that if they were questioned by police investigators, they would say they had found the car with its doors open and no cash in it.

The woman reported the money missing at the Rosebud police station at 11am the same day. As the night-shift officers arrived, including R100, there were jokes about the missing money and buying a new car or boat.

When police searched the Wonthaggi home of Senior Constable Vincent's mother, they found plastic coin bags and an after-hours contact number for R100.

Mr Livermore told Hartog Berkely, QC, delegate of the Director of Police Integrity, that the evidence suggested the serious criminal offence by police had had a devastating impact on the victim.

He said the purpose of the hearing was also to investigate an apparent failure by experienced police to get evidence of the misconduct in a form admissible in court.

"It is expected that this hearing will highlight the need for review of policies, practices and possibly legislation," Mr Livermore said.

Two supervisors at the Rosebud police station who failed to caution R100 or conduct a taped interview with him when he confessed on June 19 appeared at the hearing.

One of them, Senior Sergeant William Woodley, told the hearing that R100 was making little sense when he first confessed so he delayed contacting the ethical standards department. Senior Sergeant Woodley said he had misplaced the notes he had taken from his initial interview with RI00 but had been able to refer to them when he talked to the department about R100's confession.

Ian Hill, QC, counsel for Senior Constable Vincent, argued unsuccessfully that the matter should be heard in private and his client's name suppressed. Senior Constable Vincent is expected to appear when the hearing resumes in the County Court today.

The investigation was initiated by the ethical standards department. It was advanced by the Office of Police Integrity, which obtained further evidence from secret private hearings that would not otherwise have been available.

The hearings are to investigate the allegations against the officers and the apparent failure by experienced police to get evidence of misconduct.

The findings can be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would decide if charges were warranted.

Mr Livermore told Hartog Berkely, QC, delegate of the Director of Police Integrity, that the evidence suggested the serious criminal offence by police had had a devastating impact on the victim.

He said the purpose of the hearing was also to investigate an apparent failure by experienced police to get evidence of the misconduct in a form admissible in court.

"It is expected that this hearing will highlight the need for review of policies, practices and possibly legislation," Mr Livermore said.

Two supervisors at the Rosebud police station who failed to caution R100 or conduct a taped interview with him when he confessed on June 19 appeared at the hearing.

One of them, Senior Sergeant William Woodley, told the hearing that R100 was making little sense when he first confessed so he delayed contacting the ethical standards department. Senior Sergeant Woodley said he had misplaced the notes he had taken from his initial interview with RI00 but had been able to refer to them when he talked to the department about R100's confession.

Ian Hill, QC, counsel for Senior Constable Vincent, argued unsuccessfully that the matter should be heard in private and his client's name suppressed. Senior Constable Vincent is expected to appear when the hearing resumes in the County Court today.

The investigation was initiated by the ethical standards department. It was advanced by the Office of Police Integrity, which obtained further evidence from secret private hearings that would not otherwise have been available.

The hearings are to investigate the allegations against the officers and the apparent failure by experienced police to get evidence of misconduct.

The findings can be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would decide if charges were warranted.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

The Age - Melbourne, Victoria,01 February 2006

Police integrity in question o

EiP Comments:

The Age - Melbourne, Victoria,
01 February 2006