South Australia's Police Commissioner will not release basic details about police officers at the centre of proven or admitted misconduct, despite a request from the state's ombudsman.
The ombudsman's request was prompted by a Freedom of Information application lodged by the ABC, asking for a list of proven or admitted breaches under the Police Complaints and Discipline (PCD) Act for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021.
The ABC specifically asked for details of the misconduct, along with the officers' age, gender, rank or branch, and the penalty applied.
Section 46 of the PCD Act creates wide-reaching protection around officers' identities, making it unlawful to publish "information tending to suggest that a particular person is, has been, may be, or may have been, the subject of a complaint, report, assessment or investigation".
In a 2020 review of the PCD Act, former District Court judge Gordon Barrett recommended the law be changed to require the Police Commissioner to make public media statements outlining proven and admitted police misconduct, along with other personal details of the officer involved, as soon as "reasonably practicable", without identifying the specific officer.
Both the former police ombudsman and the current President of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal have previously called for changes to the law to allow greater transparency around disciplinary proceedings, but the SA Police Association strongly opposes any changes, arguing the current laws help maintain public confidence in SA Police.
Mr Barrett's recommendation about public statements has not been acted on by parliament.
While state ombudsman Wayne Lines found the information requested by the ABC to be exempt from FOI disclosure, he asked Police Commissioner Grant Stevens to consider using his discretion to approve its release anyway.
Mr Lines said such a move from Mr Stevens would "be consistent with Mr Barrett's recommendation".
Mr Stevens agreed to release some of the information requested in the original FOI application, but did not approve the release of officers' ages and genders.
"I have considered my position and have determined I will release the requested documents to the Applicant, pursuant to section 45 of the Act," Mr Stevens wrote to Mr Lines.
"However, to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the sanctioned employee, the document SAPOL will release to the Applicant will only include the relevant breach of the Code of Conduct, employee rank and the sanction imposed."
Mr Lines said he did not believe ages and genders would "be sufficient to reveal" officers' identities.
"It is noted that Mr Barrett's recommendation specifically identified that those details should be made available to the public," Mr Lines said.
"That said, I acknowledge that I am not permitted to determine disclosure of the information which has not been authorised by the Commissioner."
Summaries of code of conduct breaches and penalties are published in the annual reports of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) and Office of Public Integrity (OPI), but the information does not include an officer's rank, age, or gender.
The ABC is yet to receive the documents from SA Police.
Secrecy provisions apply for police, unlike other professions
States and territories across the country have secrecy provisions in place protecting police officers' identities when it comes to alleged misconduct and disciplinary matters.
Unlike in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland, SA's Police Disciplinary Tribunal is also conducted in a court and applies the rules of evidence — a higher threshold for prosecutors to meet in proving wrongdoing.
Similar tribunals for other practitioners, such as lawyers and doctors, do not have such strict requirements and usually publish their findings.
In a detailed submission to the SA Parliament's Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee (CPIP) last year, former police ombudsman Michael Grant said the tribunal should be "heard openly" and that it was "most unhealthy" that it was not.
"There is no compelling argument as to why the procedures under which disciplinary proceedings against members of the South Australian Police Force should be different to those applying widely across other professions and indeed to other police forces within Australia," he wrote.
"Equally, there is no compelling reason why hearings should not be held in public, or why the public should not know of what behaviour that members of the police force are disciplined for and what sanctions were imposed thereafter.
"[It is an] unsuitable forum for disciplinary proceedings owing to the legislative framework in which it must operate.
"It presents a major obstacle to a just and efficient disciplinary process [and] is saddled with the technicalities and legalities of a criminal court."
Current tribunal president Simon Smart, an experienced magistrate, agreed with Mr Grant on many of those issues, especially public disclosure.
"A clear and transparent process would promote public confidence in the disciplinary process and, indeed, in the police force itself," he wrote.
In its submissions to CPIP and the Barrett review, SA Police Association President Mark Carroll said union members considered "the present regime of secrecy should remain unchanged" because it considered it "a paramount consideration of maintaining public confidence in SA Police".
"Allowing the media to report on such investigations would unduly prejudice police officers' reputations," he wrote.
He said the process had a "profound effect" on officers' mental health and "condemning them to public exposure" would make them targets for "social media trolls and other haters".
The parliamentary inquiry into the operation of the PCD Act is due to hand down its report in May.
A state government spokesperson said the government would await the report before considering any reforms.
"Notwithstanding, the police commissioner has previously demonstrated a commitment to publish outcomes when it is in the public interest to do so," the spokesperson said.
