NCJ Number
86572
Journal
Australian Police Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1982) Pages: 201-209
Date Published
1982
Length
9 pages
Annotation
An analysis of the accountability of police constables in Australia focuses on the legal and administrative controls over the police role and the issue of police agencies' liability for the actions of their constables.
Abstract
Common law defines constables to include any member of the police force regardless of rank. Both the police oath and Australian law show that the constable's allegiance and employment relationship are to the Crown and not to any government, department, or commissioner. The courts have reinforced the concept of police independence by stating that police departments are not vicariously liable for the actions of their individual police officers. The courts have argued that no master-servant relationship exists between police departments and their police officers because such departments have no control over the way in which individual police perform their responsibilities. Cases dealing with civil liability have produced court decisions strengthening the argument of police independence. Nevertheless, police constables are accountable to the law and are subject to discipline and administrative control. However, superior officers in practice never interfere with the arrest and charging of offenders unless they believe that insufficient evidence exists to substantiate the arrest and charge. Nevertheless, constables have no administrative independence because they are subject to strict discipline and direction by their superior officers. The rules and instructions laid down by the commissioner of each police force also govern each constable. In addition, efforts are under way to produce a statutory modification of the current principle by which police forces are not vicariously liable in tort for the actions of their constables. In New South Wales, Parliament has enacted the indemnity provision sought by the police. A total of 15 notes are given.