By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
A New South Wales police inspector from a specialist command left after an 8-hour-long heavy drinking session with colleagues at a couple of Sydney CBD bars, but instead of spending the night at the hotel he’d checked into, the inspector collected his bags from his room, got in his car and began driving home.
The officer, who is referred to as Inspector AB, was driving through the NorthConnex tunnel at about 1.46 am on 13 May 2023, when he drove straight into a concrete crash cushion, damaging the front of his vehicle and setting off both of its safety airbags.
Inspector AB then reversed the car off the barrier and drove it into a side street, where he abandoned it. However, the incident was caught on the tunnel’s CCTV system, and a duty officer reported the accident to NSW police, not long after it had occurred, and an inquiry commenced.
Once NSW police officers arrived and confirmed it was the vehicle of Inspector AB, the Professional Standards Unit was contacted, and three days following on from that, the investigation was handed over to the Ku-ring-Gah Local Area Command, as the accident happened within its region.
However, after several months of nonaction on the matter, anonymous complaints were received by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC}, so, as is its remit, the sole NSW police watchdog began monitoring the investigation.
Protecting their own
In early November 2023, Inspector AB was charged with one count of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, or DUI, contrary to section 112(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW).
The maximum penalty for a first-time offender in relation to this crime is 18 months in prison and/or a $3,300 fine, as well as a 9-month licence disqualification, which can be dropped to six months, and this is then followed by a 24-month period of having an interlock device attach to one’s vehicle.
An interlock device prevents a car switching on unless a driver provides an alcohol-free breath sample.
A court may find an offender is exempt from an interlock device, and in those cases, the DUI charge instead imposes a 3-year licence disqualification that can be dropped to down to 12 months.
But if it had been Inspector AB’s second or a subsequent major traffic offence in the last five years, the maximum penalties then applying for a section 112 crime are increased to 2 years prison time and/or a $5,500 fine, with a 12-month licensed disqualification, which can be dropped to 9 months.
But if the court finds the offender to be exempt from an interlock device penalty, it will instead, impose a five-year licence disqualification period, which can be dropped down to two years.
The second charge imposed was one count of driving a vehicle with a high-range prescribed concentration of alcohol, or high range drink driving, contrary to section 110(5)(a) of the Road Transport Act.
A first-time offender for this offence faces up to 18 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $3,300, while a second or subsequent offence sees the offender facing 2 years inside and/or a $5,500 fine.
A licence disqualification of 3 years applies for high range drink drinking. A court can drop this to 12 months or increase it without limit, while if it’s a second or subsequent offence over the last 5 years, it then results in a 5-year disqualification, that can be dropped to 2 years or lifted without limit.
A first-time high range offender can receive an interlock order with a minimum 24-month application, following disqualification of between 6 to 9 months.
And a second or subsequent high range offence results in 48 months with an interlock device, after between 9 to 12 months licence disqualification.
The police watchdog steps in
The NSW police issued no statement about Inspector AB’s charging despite that being the regular practice. But as the media began reporting on the story, which included allegations of interference in the investigation. NSW police asked the LECC to monitor the inquiry as well.
The watchdog came to the matter with the understanding that occasionally it receives complaints that misconduct by senior officers is treated more leniently than that of junior officers. And it also receives complaints about senior officers giving favourable treatment to staff and friends.
As the offending officer, Inspector AB, held the position of Inspector in a Specialist Command, the evidence heard by the LECC suggested that his position held prestige that elevated him above the role of the average inspector.
Obvious omissions
The NSW Police Handbook defines two types of crash. A major crash involves death or injury, a party failing to stop or a drunk driver, while minor crashes, which don’t require investigation, involve a car being towed away or a person seeking medical assistance more than 24 hours after an accident.
At 2.05 am on the night of the incident, NorthConnex control contacted police to report a car hitting a crash cushion and the driver having fled. Attending officers then found the car in a side street and on informing the State Coordinator, within half an hour it had been concluded AB had been driving.
Two officers from the Specialist Command contacted Inspector AB over the phone after he’d arrived home, and he only recalled their having checked on his welfare. But one of the officers stated that AB had told him that he’d only had eight mid-strength beers over the time of the course of the night.
As per the legislation, when an accident has occurred and the driver has fled, a form of demand must be made, which requires identifying the driver. Officers then attended AB’s house at around 8 am the following day, and ascertained he was the driver, but again failed to ask about alcohol consumption.
Perverting the course of justice
Inspector AB explained that even though he’d collided with the crash cushion, he was able to drive it off the tunnel’s exit ramp, so it didn’t fall under the category of the type of accident that police are supposed to investigate. So, he called wife to pick him up and take him home.
AB said the reason that he had not answered his work phone in regard to incoming calls from his seniors on his way home as the battery was low, yet this didn’t explain why he hadn’t answered his personal phone either. Indeed, AB didn’t answer the phone until after he was at his residence.
The LECC inferred that AB didn’t want to speak to his seniors prior to arriving home, as he was well aware that “a person cannot be lawfully breath tested more than 2 hours after an accident or if they are at their own home”. And therefore, on his arrival at home, he’d avoided any breath test.
According to LECC, it was also clear when a senior officer woke the Police Standards Command state coordinator to inform him of what had happened, that the PSC officer was well aware that due to AB’s senior role the incident was going to cause issues for the NSW police.
On the basis of these actions, the LECC considered whether to refer Inspector AB to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of being charged with perverting the course of justice, contrary to section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries 14 years prison time.
And the LECC listed the evidence it considered displayed an attempt to distort the truth of what happened on the morning of the accident, and AB countered that such a charge would never hold. And the watchdog decided that as AB was to be prosecuted for two other offences to drop the third.
A questions of serious misconduct
The sole police watchdog found Inspector AB’s explanation as to why he’d abandoned his car near the NorthConnex ramp, and then walked suburban streets, waiting for his wife to collect him, as unreasonable behaviour, especially as the car needed towing and he’d eventually have to call police.
The LECC considered that Inspector AB did not follow police procedures as set out in the NSW Police Handbook, which requires an officer after such an incident to remain with their vehicle and to immediately advise the police radio room of the crash and as to his whereabouts.
Waiting with his car and contacting the police control room would have been the logical way for any officer, let alone the inspector of a prestigious role, to act, and yet, he has given no practical reason for leaving, but is known to have been drinking for a number of hours prior to the accident.
The LECC report makes clear that it finds that Officer AB has engaged in serious misconduct by deliberately leaving the scene of the crash and did so to avoid being breath tested
And the actions of Inspector AB were neither split-second decisions, rather these were the decisions made by a “senior and experienced officer”, who “at the time, held a prestigious position in the NSW Police Force”.
“These were deliberate acts of impropriety,” the police watchdog said in conclusion, and it went on to recommend that the commissioner of police consider taking action to terminate Officer AB’s employment under section 181D of the Police Act”.
