THE Police Integrity Commission has been labelled a "shameless waste of money" after just 20 people faced charges stemming from PIC inquiries in 2005/06.
With an annual budget of $16 million, it equates to $800,000 per prosecution.
Of those, just 12 were charged over the corrupt behaviour they had been investigated for - the others were charged with dishonesty offences.
Corrupt cop Christopher Laycock has not been charged because evidence gathered by the PIC - including his confession - will not stand up in criminal proceedings.
Senior police told The Daily Telegraph officers are disillusioned with the so-called corruption fighting power, saying all it has done is "name and shame" officers who could have been dealt with by internal disciplinary action.
"It's a shameless waste of taxpayer money," said one, who asked not to be named, of the so-called police watchdog.
Legal sources said because Laycock confessed in the PIC under objection - and there is little or no independent corroboration - the material cannot be used against him in court. The former detective sergeant admitted in the witness box to a string of corrupt activities.
It is almost three years since the PIC paraded Laycock before public hearings as the state's most corrupt officer since the Wood royal commission, recommending he be charged with 12 corruption-related crimes.
Laycock, the son of former assistant commissioner John Laycock, admitted in late 2004 he had tipped off a child porn suspect for cash, taken bribes, planned kidnappings, taken money to fix a jury in 2001 and used his police badge to exercise unauthorised raids.
Last December, Laycock told The Daily Telegraph even he was puzzled he had not been charged and said he had a right to defend the accusations in court.
The DPP last week referred inquiries about Laycock's case to the PIC - but the commissioner's spokesman declined to comment.
Opposition police spokesman Mike Gallacher said the Laycock case was "bizarre" and the PIC needed to outline to the Parliament how it could do its job better.
"If they're having problems they should be detailing what problems are there and whether we need to review the role ability to do the job," he said.
Laycock declined to comment when The Daily Telegraph contacted him about this report.
In a recent case, now-suspended Superintendent Adam Purcell was investigated for alleged mishandling of a gang rape investigation but is expected to receive only adverse recommendations relating to misuse of public office and dishonesty. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Another senior detective, who also declined to be named, said Supt Purcell was being held up as "a scapegoat" to frighten other police into not leaking information into the public arena.
No comments:
Post a Comment