NSW Police Officer Referred to DPP for Potential Criminal Charges Over Serious Misconduct

The New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), released a report this week finding that a police officer used excessive force on six occasions over 10 weeks in early 2024, as well a submerged two body-word video (BWV) devices in water to destroy evidence. The police watchdog concluded that the officer’s actions amount to serious misconduct.

The officer in question resigned from the NSW Police Force on 6 June 2024, which was a month after the LECC began its investigation into his actions, following concerns being raised in respect of the arrest of a young person in February 2024.

The watchdog found the officer had submerged two BWV devices in water to destroy incriminating evidence, and the six incidents involved took place over 6 February to 25 April 2024.

The LECC has since referred the matter to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions for the potential laying of charges against the former police officer’s name.

The other key issue this investigation raised for state law enforcement was that the officer, after engaging in excessive force and the destruction of the BWV devices, then told four other serving officers about these breaches of expected conduct, and these other officers then kept his admissions to themselves. So, the LECC has recommended the commissioner also take action against them.

A key recommendation that the sole NSW police watchdog has made in respect of this inquiry is that the NSW Police Force should have access to BWV without first requiring that a matter has been the subject of a misconduct complaint, which was a suggestion the LECC first made in its May 2025 Review of NSW Police Force Body-Worn Video Policy and Practice report.

A force of their own

The key incident leading to the finding of serious misconduct involved the suspect officer and others being sent out to deal with four teenagers armed with a gun and knives threatening a fifth teen at a train station. A pursuit ensued, with the suspect officer and another female officer hauling in a 14- and 15-year-old for questioning and placing their BWV devices in a docking station for recording.

The female officer then took the teens to the lockup. The suspect male officer stayed behind at the first police station. And later that evening, 16 February 2024, the pair were both at a function, and the male officer told his colleague that he’d tossed their BWV devices into the “ocean”.

The female officer went on to provide her senior officers with a report on the incident, in which she explained that the male officer had used excessive force on the 15-year-old, and she further set out that he’d destroyed the BWV devices. The NSW Police Force then determined to criminally investigate the matter.

Further, subsequent incidents involving excessive force were also investigated in respect of the suspect officer, who was alleged to have scratched a civilian’s face for no reason on 3 April 2024, while he’d also allegedly assaulted a civilian suspect during an arrest on the 25th day of that same month.

These additional instances resulted in the LECC taking over the investigation, on the basis that if the allegations were true, then they likely breached the threshold of serious misconduct. This included having the suspect officer undergoing an assessment on 3 June 2024, at which time he admitted to assaulting both the 15- and the 14-year-old in February and destroying the BWV devices.

The officer then under investigation told the LECC agents that he’d subsequently told four other NSW police officers about the assault on the youths and the destruction of the devices, which, the watchdog notes, did not result in any other officer reporting this information, as is required under the duty to report fellow officer misconduct contained in section 211F of the Police Act 1990 (NSW).

Serious disciplinary action warranted

The LECC found the suspect officer had engaged in multiple instances of conduct that was not “reasonably necessary”, as per the requirement for the use of force under section 230 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), which included delivering three kicks to a teenage boy’s stomach, along with picking up another teen by the collar and throwing him.

Section 10 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) defines serious misconduct as police officer actions that could comprise a serious criminal offence, or one that carries at least 5 years prison time as its maximum penalty, as well as behaviour that warrants serious disciplinary action, or a pattern of officer misconduct or maladministration carried out more than once.

A LECC finding of serious misconduct, however, does not amount to a finding of guilt or that the suspect of an investigation has committed a criminal offence.

The LECC couldn’t find serious misconduct in respect of the officer’s use of force and the criminal offences on the NSW books, as the crimes would likely be assessed as common assault by a court, and that only carries 2 years prison time. The offence of actual bodily harm, which carries 5 years, would have resulted in a finding of serious misconduct, but there was no evidence of such harm.

The watchdog could make an assessment based on the fact that the three kicks to a 14-year-old’s stomach would amount to a breach of the NSW Police Force Code of Conduct, and therefore, it would have warranted serious disciplinary action, and thus, serious misconduct could be found.

The obligation to report misconduct

The LECC then considered the conduct of the four serving NSW police officers, whom the offending officer had disclosed had used excessive force on two teenagers on 16 February last year, and that he’d then erased the evidence that was on the BWV devices by destroying them, because these officers failed to report this as required by the statutory duty to report.

The watchdog referred to the reluctance or refusal of NSW police officers to report on the misconduct of another officer by the term the “code of silence”. The 1997 final report of the Wood Royal Commission found that while the code of silence is not unique to the NSW Police Force, this dubious aspect of policing culture is particularly well developed in this state.

Section 211F of the Police Act requires an officer to report another whom they suspect on reasonable grounds has committed serious maladministration or misconduct, while section 211G of the Act provides that police officers can report the misconduct of another to the NSW police commissioner if there is no duty to report on certain circumstances.

The penalty of neglecting this policing duty, according to section 201 of the Police Act, is a $2,200 fine.

As part of its investigation, the LECC then summoned the four officers who had failed in their duty to report the “unredacted” and “unedited” version of the serious misconduct that the suspect officer freely told them he’d partaken in.

The LECC found that all the officers, who were privy to the serious misconduct but did not report it were well aware of their duty to report, but they did hold varying degrees of understanding as to when the threshold to enliven this has been met, and this misunderstanding is likely to occur throughout the NSW Police Force. So, the LECC recommends fresh training in respect of the duty.

The NSW police watchdog concluded that the four officers had failed to meet their statutory duty, and it further assessed that this too amounted to serious misconduct, and the LECC has further recommended that the NSW police commissioner take reviewable action against these officers, in line with the provisions of section 173 of the Police Act.

Section 173 of the Act provides that the commissioner can punish officers found to have engaged in misconduct with a reduction in rank or grade, as well as seniority, or deferral of an incremental pay rise, or the top cop can further impose any other action they consider appropriate under the circumstances.