A Queensland senior sergeant who was found by an internal police investigation to have committed nine sexual assaults of junior female officers engaged in unchecked problematic conduct for 16 years due to a culture that discouraged complaints, an inquiry has heard.
The commission of inquiry into Queensland police responses to domestic violence heard the man’s conduct included touching the breasts of a female subordinate, and following another into a toilet and suggesting he had come “for a blowjob”.
The inquiry received more than 200 late submissions that appeared to burst a culture of silence among police, including many who said they would have been labelled “dogs” for speaking out.
On Wednesday, the counsel assisting, Ruth O’Gorman KC, said the system within the Queensland police service (QPS) was “stacked against female victims”.
“It’s failing to send the appropriate message to members [of the QPS] that this behaviour will not be tolerated,” O’Gorman said.
O’Gorman questioned the police commissioner, Katarina Carroll, in detail about dozens of complaints of harassment and misconduct by male officers, including incidents which had prompted women to leave the police service.
O’Gorman raised the case of a detective senior sergeant, as she suggested to Carroll that the culture of the QPS acted to discourage or prevent complaints about sexist, misogynistic or racist behaviour.
The inquiry heard that an investigation into the officer began in 2019, after a complaint by a female officer. It ultimately found that his conduct dated back to 2002, but that over more than a decade, because no one had made a complaint, he was not held to account at the time.
O’Gorman said 84 allegations were made about the officer, related to 26 staff members. Of those, 80 were substantiated by an investigation by a specialist team – known as Juniper – set up to address bullying and harassment.
They included nine incidents of sexual assault, one attempted sexual assault, and incidents of sexual harassment and predatory behaviour mostly directed at female members of his unit, and those under his supervision.
“All very creepy behaviour. All of that conduct was unsolicited, unwanted, uninitiated,” O’Gorman said.
The inquiry heard that he had been a member of a promotion interview panel when he approached a female senior constable outside the room and “slid his hand up her bottom … and up her back”. Once inside the interview room, another male panel member passed him a piece of paper that questioned whether the female interviewee was “loose”. He nodded in acknowledgment.
Carroll told the inquiry that the matter was “deeply disturbing”, “disgusting and unacceptable”.
Other allegations against the senior sergeant included that he hugged a female officer from behind and cupped her breast. He told another that “fuck you look so hot right now” and that he’d like to have sex with her up against some filing cabinets, the inquiry heard.
But, as O’Gorman noted, “none of these women complained”.
When one woman, a junior senior constable, told a supervisor about some of these behaviours, she was no longer required to return to the particular unit, but advised that “her professional development would be delayed” if she did not return.
The inquiry heard about several cases where women were effectively punished for being victims of problematic behaviour. O’Gorman said the system was “stacked against female victims”.
One junior female officer was disciplined for not reporting the sexual harassment she was subjected to by her supervisor when she first joined the service, the inquiry heard.
The sergeant was found by an investigation to have engaged in “inappropriate” conduct against three women. In one instance, he approached a junior officer with his penis protruding from his jeans, asking if he should attend a meeting with an inspector in that way.
He asked the officer to take photographs of his penis.
The junior officer was found to have committed “misconduct” for failing to report she was sexually harassed.
Carroll told the inquiry it was “wrong” for the woman to be reprimanded.
O’Gorman said that from late submissions received by the inquiry, it was clear that officers had “a deep fear of speaking out”.
She said officers who made complaints had had dog food left on their desk, or been given a dog bowl.
An anonymous submission, quoted by O’Gorman, said: “I’m very fearful of making a submission. I’ve never said a word … speaking out would have a severe impact on my career. I’d be labelled a dog, a snitch and that reputation would follow me wherever I go.”
O’Gorman suggested to Carroll the QPS “doesn’t have a handle on how serious the problem is”.
Carroll said instances referred to were “completely unacceptable” but that data suggested problems were not large in scale.
