OmbudsmanNT Investigation Report Matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer May 2015
Tabled paper 1378
Tabled Papers for 12th Assembly 2012 - 2016; Tabled Papers; ParliamentNT
Tabled by Adam Giles
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
30 193. There are also numerous other entities within Australia that have the power to compel disclosure of incriminatory information, for example, the crime and anti-corruption bodies mentioned at paragraph 111 above. 194. Most, if not all, of these entities have a proviso that limits the future use of such information along the lines of the concluding proviso in section 38(2) of the OCPID Act above. 195. Another example of such a proviso can be taken from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Act 1976 which abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination but goes on to say, but the information, the production of the document or record or the answer to the question is not admissible in evidence against the person in proceedings other than [in certain specified proceedings relating to the Act] (section 9(4)). 196. It is therefore a matter for the legislature to decide whether it is appropriate to abrogate the privilege in particular circumstances and, if it decides to do so, what protections should be put in place in relation to future use. Police powers to compel disclosure 197. The question of abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination has recently been considered by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Police. 198. By way of the Police Administration Amendment Act 2014, the Legislative Assembly inserted section 79A, which provides: 79A Member to answer questions or give information in relation to breach of discipline (1) This section applies to a member who is required by the Commissioner or a prescribed member to answer questions or provide information in relation to an alleged or suspected breach of discipline by a member, whether or not an investigation has been initiated under section 81(3). (2) The member is not excused from answering a question or providing information when required to do so in relation to the breach of discipline or alleged breach of discipline on the ground that the answer to the question or the information may: (a) incriminate the member; or (b) make the member liable to a penalty. (3) However, the answer to the question or the information is not admissible as evidence against the member: (a) in any other proceedings against the member under this Act; or (b) in civil or criminal proceedings in a court. (4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to proceedings for the following matters: (a) perjury; (b) employment; (c) a claim in tort against the Territory made by a member. Note for section 79A Failure to comply with this section may constitute a breach of discipline under section 76(d) or (da).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.
We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
You are welcome to provide further information or feedback about this item by emailing TerritoryStories@nt.gov.au