Mid-level officers breached the SAPOL Code of Conduct 32 times in a three-year period, documents provided to the ABC reveal, but details about the misconduct remain wrapped in secrecy.
Commissioner Grant Stevens in March declined to release the ages and genders of officers involved in proven or admitted misconduct, following a request from the state's Deputy Ombudsman.
That 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 asked for a break-down of the misconduct, along with each officers' age, gender, rank or branch, and the penalty applied.
The PCD Act creates wide-reaching protection around the identity of officers accused of misconduct, and makes it unlawful to publish any information that could reveal their identity.
While the Deputy Ombudsman Steven Strelan said he did not have the power to require SA Police to provide the information, he asked Mr Stevens to use his discretionary powers to provide it anyway.
Mr Stevens agreed to release the officers' ranks — but not their ages or genders — to "prevent the disclosure of the identity of the sanctioned employee".
After receiving the documents, the ABC requested more information about what kinds of information had been improperly accessed or released by officers, including whether any of that information related to the private details of victims of crime.
It also asked for more detail about what kinds of behaviour had amounted to instances of "excessive force" or "oppressive, offensive or abusive" conduct.
"Confidentiality provisions under the Police Complaints and Discipline Act 2016 prevents the disclosure or publication of information that may tend to identify a person who is or has been subject to a complaint," Officer in Charge of Ethical and Professional Standards Branch, Detective Superintendent Rob Papworth said.
"The Commissioner of Police gave careful consideration to [the ABC's] request for information, whilst also balancing the need for confidentiality, and determined the information provided to you appropriately achieves this outcome.
"While the community generally accepts the need for SAPOL to access information, it also expects that information will be collected and stored securely in a manner where privacy and confidentiality will be respected.
"Where a police officer has improperly accessed SAPOL systems … disciplinary action has been taken.
"At all times police officers must act only within the powers and authorities provided by law [and] where these expectations have not been met, disciplinary action has been taken."
SA Greens call for proactive disclosure
The documents released to the ABC show mid-level officers — sergeants and brevet sergeants — breached the SAPOL Code of Conduct 32 times during a three-year period.
Those breaches included confidentiality breaches, such as improper release of or access to confidential information, as well as instances of "oppressive, offensive, or abusive" conduct, and the "improper seeking of benefits or advantages".
Sergeants sit in the middle of the policing hierarchy, above cadets and constables, but below inspectors and superintendents.
South Australian police officers who used excessive force while exercising their powers received fines or reprimands from their workplace.
It is not known whether those officers were subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty.
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.
SA Greens co-leader Tammy Franks called on the state government to "stop kicking the can down the road" and introduce legislation requiring proactive disclosure.
"Proven or admitted misconduct should actually be proactively disclosed by the police themselves," she said.
"It shouldn't rely on media, and bureaucracy, and the Ombudsman, to be telling the police force and the Commissioner to release this information.
"What we are calling for is public trust, particularly when things have gone wrong.
"Public trust is given to police and we deserve that back.
"There is a balance here.
"It doesn't require individuals to be named and shamed, but I think a level of detail that's made in a proactive way, without being dragged out of the police force, is something that South Australians would expect, and respect."
Police union opposes changes to current laws
SA Parliament's Crime and Public Integrity Committee (CPIP) also began examining the operation of the PCD Act in 2022.
It was originally expected to hand down a report this month, but the committee's members are now considering extra submissions.
The SA Police Association — the union representing police officers — strongly opposes any changes, arguing the current laws help maintain public confidence in SA Police, and protect officers from being targeted with online abuse.
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 submission to the inquiry last year, former police ombudsman Michael Grant said he believed "there is no compelling reason why (police disciplinary) 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".
The current President of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal has also called for greater transparency around disciplinary proceedings.
The state government has previously said it will wait for the CPIP's report before considering reform, and that the Police Commissioner has "previously demonstrated a commitment to publish outcomes when it is in the public interest to do so".
In March, Premier Peter Malinauskas said he was "open minded to the concept of greater transparency".
Ms Franks said she hoped the government would act "within this calendar year".
She also called on the state government to enact a recommendation for a "civilian led" police complaints body, as outlined by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
"We don't need police investigating police — we need more transparency than that," she said.
"We have a Voice to Parliament now, we need a civilian led body that is independent, and that includes Aboriginal voices."
