Victoria police appears to have breached its internal policies when dealing with two complaints lodged by AFL great Danielle Laidley, a Guardian investigation reveals.
Laidley, a former North Melbourne coach and premiership player, settled a legal claim against Victoria police earlier this year after officers shared photos of her taken while she was in custody.
But the force failed to follow its own guidelines in relation to two separate complaints. One related to police members sharing other photos of her while using transphobic remarks, and another involved the possible improper retention of data downloaded from Laidley’s phone.
Under the Victoria police policy for complaint management, investigations into complaints such as those raised by Laidley are expected to be completed within 90 days. Complainants are to be notified in writing when their matters are finalised, and be regularly updated about the status of their complaint, the policy states.
Laidley lodged the complaints separately in November 2021.
The first complaint relates to a photo covertly taken of Laidley while she attended the Geelong racecourse. The Age reported that several police officers were involved in disseminating the image, with some attaching offensive and transphobic messages.
The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (Ibac) launched an appeal for information regarding the incident soon after, and lawyers for Laidley made a complaint to police.
Later in November, a separate complaint was lodged by Laidley’s lawyers in relation to her concerns that Victoria police continued to hold data from her phone, as well as the legal framework governing that data retention and the restrictions in place regarding access to the data.
The complaint was based on information that had come to light during the investigation into police transmitting images of her while she was in custody at St Kilda police station.
In relation to both complaints lodged by Laidley, the force apparently failed to complete its internal investigations within the timelines specified or to keep her regularly updated, correspondence seen by Guardian Australia showed.
Victoria police also failed to inform Laidley in writing that the investigation regarding the Geelong racecourse incident was finalised, which is another apparent breach of force guidelines, and did not respond to queries from her lawyer regarding their decision to finalise the second complaint.
Laidley said she supported the push for a police ombudsman in Victoria, and called for anyone who may have information regarding the Geelong racecourse incident to come forward.
She said she was told by the investigating officer that the force had been unable to progress her complaint because the journalist who broke the story would not reveal their sources, but the Guardian was unable to confirm this.
“All I would ask is that if there’s someone out there who knows, that can stand tall and stop this rubbish, we can all get on with our lives,” Laidley said.
“Someone in the community whether they be police members or society at large know where these [messages and photo] came from.
“I understand being in the AFL industry for all these years that journos are going to protect their sources, but basically the police are hiding behind the journos not revealing their sources. It’s an easy call for them to make.”
Laidley said she had been embarrassed by the conduct of the officers involved in sharing the photo and questioned whether the handling of the investigation reflected Victoria police’s broader attitudes towards gender-diverse complainants.
A Victoria police spokesperson confirmed the force’s policy regarding complaints, but did not comment on why these policies were apparently breached in Laidley’s case.
“Victoria police endeavours to handle complaints as swiftly as possible, balancing that with ensuring investigations are thorough and comprehensive,” the spokesperson said. “On occasion there are unforeseen external factors beyond our control which will see timeframes extend as necessary.
“Victoria police has a guide to timeframes but it is important to note that every investigation is different and has its own complexities dependent [on] whether an investigation is of a criminal or disciplinary nature.
“When an investigation is completed the investigator is required to ensure written advice of the result and any action or proposed action is forwarded to the complainant and the employee or employees involved.”
Jeremy King, a lawyer at Robinson Gill who acts for Laidley, said her case highlighted fundamental flaws with police oversight in the state.
“If one of the most high profile police accountability cases, who is legally represented, can’t get a response from Vicpol, what hope does anyone else have?” King said.
“In law and in policy, they have to provide responses in writing, and they haven’t done so.
“They have every interest in not doing it in other cases, and nobody holds them to account … [but] in this particular case they don’t want to do it, because I think they know something has gone wrong here, and as soon as they put something in writing, Dani will probably do something with it.”
Ibac confirmed it was reviewing the force’s investigation into the Geelong complaint, but was unable to comment further.
