Officers from the Victoria police taskforce that investigates rape and sexual assault complaints within the force conducted a “highly intrusive and oppressive” interview with a sergeant accused of having an affair at work, an independent review has found.
The Salus taskforce officers asked the sergeant – who was demoted for lying about the affair – whether they had slept with other police, how many times they slept with their colleague, whether they “talked dirty” or exchanged explicit photographs in messages, who paid for the motel rooms where they had met, and whether they had lunch or went on holiday together or whether the relationship was “just for sex”.
The police registration and services board president, Andrea Lester, found the Salus officers conducted the “unjustifiable and unreasonable intrusion” despite Victoria police having no clear policy about conflicts of interest as they apply to consensual relationships at work.
The force has accepted the review findings and is working to clarify its policies relating to consensual relationships, a spokeswoman said.
The sergeant applied to the board for a review of a decision to demote them to senior constable and ban them from applying for a promotion for two years after they were found to have engaged in “disgraceful or improper conduct” by lying about the affair.
Lester overturned the penalty, finding that it was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Her review findings were published without the names of the officers involved in the affair and gender pronouns suppressed to protect their privacy.
“Much of the interview was disturbing and went ‘way too far’,” Lester found last month.
“The Applicant and [their former partner] both readily admitted to the investigators they were in a private consensual relationship: there was no justification or probative value in violating personal privacy through intrusive questions about the details of the relationship.
“The Applicant was questioned on the basis of an incorrect assumption that there was in fact a conflict of interest which the Applicant was obliged under policy to disclose and manage. There was not. Questions were put repeatedly which contained this false premise, to the point where the Applicant appeared to have been almost badgered into accepting they were obliged to declare the relationship as a conflict of interest.”
The sergeant, referred to in Lester’s decision as SLC, and a senior constable referred to as GH, worked at the same station but not in the same team when they started an affair in late 2017.
In April the following year, an inspector at the station questioned the sergeant about their relationship with GH after a rumour began to circulate that they had sex in the station’s sleeping quarters.
The sergeant denied the rumour and also denied that they were in a relationship with GH, stating they were just good friends.
They later admitted to the affair in subsequent interviews with Salus in 2019, but maintained they never had sex with GH at work.
The sergeant was also found to have committed two other disciplinary breaches, but these were not the subject of the review.
Lester found that these admissions occurred amid the context of the investigator appearing to be “under the impression that they were at liberty to conduct a wide-ranging ‘fishing expedition’ and to compel the Applicant to answer any question whatsoever about their personal relationship”.
“Warnings were given at the commencement of the interview, and the ‘obligation to cooperate’ and ‘tell the truth’ was repeated [along] with a warning the Applicant could be ‘in more trouble’ if they did not ‘tell us everything now’. This is simply not the case.”
Lester found the pair could “only have experienced this interview as a violation of personal privacy and dignity, with likely adverse impacts upon mental health and welfare”.
She added that there was a “significant lack of policy clarity” in Victoria police about what constitutes a conflict of interest in consensual relationships and the obligations and procedures for reporting and managing such matters.
“These are not simple issues and have been the subject of public debate (especially in the context of the ‘Me Too’ movement and scandals about exploitative sexual relationships).
“The continued absence of guidance within Victoria police on these matters is regrettable.
“The lack of clarity invites individual managers and decision-makers to substitute their own personal moral judgments, influenced by their own life experiences and values, as their guiding principles in determining what they are entitled to ask about and what constitutes ‘disgraceful conduct’... [t]his is highly likely to result in inconsistent treatment and outcomes.”
A Victoria police spokeswoman confirmed in a statement that the force was updating its conflict of interest policies.
“Victoria police accepts the PRSB’s findings, and since this time Victoria police has updated training including human rights training and our integrity management course.
“Regular reviews and debriefs of activities, including investigations, hearings, sanctions and outcomes, are undertaken and in consultation with PRSB and the legal discipline advisory unit. These reviews can lead to improved practices and policies for the organisation.”
