Appendix B

Examples of Ethical Decision Making Processes

The following examples provide a range of resolutions and dilemmas likely to been countered by members during their employment with the Service. They do not purport to provide definitive answers, but rather illustrate the range of considerations often involved in ethical decision making processes. Members should be aware that any situation has innumerable influencing factors that impact on any decision making process and that the resolutions in these examples may not translate directly to situations arising in the work environment.

Situation - Implementing Service Policy

The Minister has approved the introduction of a Police Beat Shop Front at the local shopping centre. You do not wish to support or participate in the initiative.

Discussion

Public Officials should accept that the Government has an obligation to determine general policy, as does the Service to implement that policy. A member who has concerns about the effectiveness of any policy, practice or procedure, has not only a right, but an obligation to raise those concerns with the Service. No member will be disadvantaged for doing so, provided that those objections are raised in an appropriate internal forum and in a manner appropriate to the issue. Once policy is determined however, each member is obliged to comply with, and to do all that is possible within their area of influence to give effect to that policy.

Members should also consider that the obligation to support decided policy goes further than simply complying with the strict letter of instructions. Members will often be in a position to influence the effectiveness of policies or initiatives. This might include, for example, decisions on rosters, the selection of staff for particular tasks, or even in exercising personal influence over members. A member who makes decisions or takes actions that has the effect of impairing a policy initiative may be in breach of this code.

Resolution

In this instance, the member is free to propose an argument as to why a particular shop front should not proceed or should be closed, provided that any submissions are made internally through the appropriate channels. Once a decision has been made, however, it is incumbent on the member to support whatever policy has been put in place.

* * * * *

Situation - Public Comment

A police officer in uniform makes the following personal comment to a reporter while at the scene of a fatal traffic accident at a busy intersection. "These red light cameras do not work, I attend accidents here regularly and the cameras have not reduced the number of accidents or deaths - the Government and the Service are wasting their money."

Discussion

The community is entitled to expect that members are publicly committed to, rather than in conflict with the policies and overall direction of the Service and the Government. Except where prescribed by Service policy, the code seeks to ensure members make official comments that are factual and placed within an appropriate policing context.

In this case the member has made personal comments while on duty which are not supportive of the red light camera program, either without having sufficient knowledge of,or ignoring overall program success throughout the State.

Members whilst on duty or acting in an official capacity are to ensure that they do not publicly convey their personal views where such views are, or would reasonably be construed as, contrary to or critical of those of the Service or the Government.

In all other circumstances members are to ensure that any public comments are made clearly in a private capacity. This could be achieved for example, by prefacing a public comment with a disclaimer which clearly identifies the remark as being a comment made in a private capacity.

Resolution

In the situation as outlined, the member has acted inappropriately by providing comment while on duty that amounts to improper criticism of the Government and the Service. The comment also gives rise to the perception that the member is in disagreement with Service policy and direction. Members who disagree with Service or Government policy or strategies are to either raise their concerns through Service reporting/grievance mechanisms or through their relevant Union/Professional Association. An appropriate course of action for the officer in the above situation would have been to either refrain from comment or alternatively, make a comment supportive of the overall program.

* * * * *

Situation - Comply with Lawful Directions

A supervisor issues a direction to a member of the Service. The member forms an opinion that the direction issued is manifestly unlawful and immediately raises their concern with the supervisor. The supervisor considers the issues raised and explains their understanding of the law on the matter to the member. The supervisor then reissues the initial direction.

Discussion

The Service recognises a member's right to question directions under certain circumstances. However, of equal importance to the efficient and effective functioning of the Service is the obligation of members to comply with lawful directions. This obligation should never be taken lightly by members as policing agencies provide specific and unique services vital to the well being of members of the community and the maintenance of a peaceful, ordered and lawful society.

This code seeks to strike a balance between a member's rights and obligations in respect of compliance with directions. Members should be fully aware that they may be required to justify decisions and actions where they question any direction, and further, that they are likely to be subject to investigation should they elect not to comply. For this reason, a member should only consider non-compliance where absolutely certain a direction is unlawful and then only after the issuing member has been given the opportunity to reconsider the direction. Although very few situations of this nature should arise it is expected that where they do, it will be resolved by immediate discussion between the members involved, or where operationally convenient by seeking further advice and/or direction. Members should also be mindful of and maintain public confidence in the Service and its members.

Resolution

In the situation above, accepting that the direction is lawful, both the supervisor and the member have acted appropriately. There is unlikely to be sufficient justification for the member electing not to comply with the direction. Alternately, if on considering the matters raised by the member, the supervisor affirms that the direction is unlawful, the supervisor should rescind the direction. There may be situations where a supervisor consider smatters raised by a member and persists with the original direction. Where a member remains certain that the direction is unlawful the member's concerns should be immediately raised with the supervisor before refusing to comply with the direction. Members of the Service are not to comply with directions, instructions or orders that are unlawful. The resolution of matters raised in this situation may result in conflict between members. Members in this situation are to be mindful of their obligations to respect persons under this code and the need to maintain professional standards of conduct.

* * * * *

Situation - Performance Management

A supervisor and a subordinate have a number of personal altercations in the course of a year. The subordinate's work is otherwise acceptable, however the member and supervisor continue to disagree over a range of professional and private matters. It is generally known by staff at the establishment that the two members do not get on. The subordinate makes application to attend a training course and in endorsing the application the supervisor states that the member is not a suitable candidate recommending against their attendance without providing reasons for their comments.

Discussion

Members of the Service often make decisions which impact directly on others and as such, are expected to treat all other employees with respect and dignity. To this end, any decision about another person should be made in good faith and using only valid criteria. Any assessment of another member should always be made on the basis of merit. Members should be aware that where a poor personal relationship becomes common knowledge among staff, a perception may arise that a decision has been taken on unfair grounds even when this is not the case. Members should also be aware that their decisions relating to other persons may be subject to review under the Judicial Review Act 1991.

Resolution

In the example given, any decision made by the supervisor is likely to be open to criticism. In that light, the decision maker should ensure that they are in a position to provide reasons when making the decision, or conversely, more appropriately pass the decision onto another supervisor to make. Alternatively, had the supervisor been in receipt of information to justify their comments and decision, it would be within their rights to oppose the application.

* * * * *

Situation - Personal Conflicts

A member who is appointed as a Superintendent of Traffic receives an application from a local football club for an exemption permit under the Traffic Act 1949 to conduct a temporary roadside stall. The member is aware that police have attended disturbances at the football club on a number of occasions in the past year. The member refuses the permit, and tells the president of the club that when they 'clean up their act' the permit might be reconsidered.

Discussion

Rules of natural justice (or procedural fairness) are intended to ensure that a decision maker only takes into account information that is relevant to the decision being made. Members making decisions are to ensure that personal feelings and bias play no part in the process. The aim of the member in this example is intended to force the club to take more responsibility for the conduct of its premises. While this is in itself commendable, it is inappropriate for the member to take into account an irrelevant consideration when exercising a discretionary power.

Resolution

In this example the member has taken into account information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. The decision by the member has not been made in line with the rules of natural justice (or procedural fairness) and is in breach of the provisions of this code. Members should refer to s. 10.15 (v) and the definition of Natural Justice as outlined in the code of conduct.

* * * * *

Situation - Conflict of Interests

A police officer is directed to investigate an offence for which a close relative has been nominated as a suspect.

Discussion

Any situation where an officer investigates a matter involving a friend or relative may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests. This is not to say that it will always be improper for a member to deal with any matter involving a friend or family member. The potential for a conflict of interests must be determined on the individual circumstances of each matter. This will involve determining the seriousness of the matter and any possible outcomes.

For example, the taking of a crime report from a relative is unlikely to raise any adverse comment, particularly if the offence is a minor one and the complainant does not intend to lodge an insurance claim in relation to the matter. In this case a member would not be expected to declare their personal interest. On the other hand, if a member has been tasked with investigating an arson at premises owned by a relative, the member would be expected to report that interest to their supervisor. In all cases, it would become a matter for the supervisor to decide whether the member should continue with the job. In making such a decision other factors such as the availability of other staff and the urgency of the matter will also be deciding factors.

Resolution

In the example provided, the officer should clearly identify their position and relationship to the suspect to their supervisor and seek a direction. The supervisor should consider all issues raised and make every attempt to have another officer investigate the matter where operationally convenient. The supervisor in this instance needs to consider any actual or apparent conflict of interests and the effect that this may have on the efficient and effective discharge of law enforcement obligations and the proper administration of justice.

* * * * *

Situation - Giving Priority to Official Duty

A member has returned to work early from paternity leave. The member's child is now six months old. Whilst working a weekend night shift, the member is informed that their child is ill and has been admitted to hospital. The member approaches the officer in charge and requests to finish early to permit attendance at the hospital. The station is already short staffed for that shift and the workload is high.

Discussion

Under s. 2 of the code members are expected to act in the public interest and give priority to their official duties and obligations. The Service recognises that there will be circumstances where family responsibilities or commitments are to be given priority over official duties. However, each case will need to be assessed on an individual basis in order to determine where that priority shall lie.

For example, the officer in charge in the above scenario needs to take into consideration matters such as station and individual work loads, service delivery, available staff, leave entitlements, duration of shift remaining and the effectiveness of the member concerned. Where the officer in charge forms the opinion that the member could be released from duty to attend to their family responsibilities without detriment to the Service and the community, the member should be granted leave of absence at the earliest opportunity. Alternatively, where the officer in charge determines that the member cannot be released from duty (e.g. the member is involved in an emergent or foreseeable situation involving the safety of others) the member should accept the decision and give priority to official duty until released by the supervisor.

Resolution

As indicated in the discussion above, the Service recognises that there will be circumstances where family responsibilities or commitments are to be given priority over official duties. The Service and its members will make all reasonable effort to ensure that where other members are faced with emergent or pressing family responsibilities, they are afforded appropriate and timely support, especially where those responsibilities outweigh the member's official duties and obligations. In the situation as stated, this would be situational (e.g. the child's condition, the safety of others, the effectiveness of the member under the circumstances) and any number of resolutions could be afforded dependant on the information and circumstances available at the time.

* * * * *

Situation - Use of Official Information

A member of the public contacts their local police station and requests information about a vehicle they intend to purchase. The person wants to know who the registered owner is, and if the vehicle is stolen. The member advises the person that the vehicle is not recorded as being stolen. The member declines to provide personal details of the registered owner of the vehicle.

Discussion

The practice of information being held by governments about its citizens is an issue that is highly contentious, and one that evokes very passionate debates. For this reason the integrity of police information systems must be uppermost in the minds of members who access this type of information. Members of the Service are granted access to information systems for official purposes and access to this information for unofficial purposes is strictly prohibited. Members are to be aware that inappropriate access or use of official information is in breach of Service policy and has the potential to attract severe criticism of the Service.

There is no objection to members accessing information that they genuinely require as part of their official duties. It must be stressed however, that access to information does not automatically entitle a member to access information at will without an official purpose.

Resolution

In this example the member has acted appropriately. The information provided to the person in this instance is information that would normally be made available to members of the public. Had the member gone one step further and supplied the personal details of the owner of the vehicle they would have clearly been in breach of Service policy covering the release of information (see s. 1.10 of the Operational Procedures Manual). Members of the Service need to be well aware of their responsibilities and obligations about the handling and release of information held by the Service. Where members are unsure of their responsibilities and obligations in this area they should seek advice from their supervisor before releasing any Service information.

* * * * *

Situation - Acceptance of Benefits

A member of the Service is involved in the letting of a contract in a tender process. Before the contract is awarded the member is invited to attend a football match as a guest in the corporate box of one of the tendering companies. The Managing Director indicates that the invitation is not intended to influence the contract decision. The member accepts the invitation.

Discussion

An important criterion to be used in determining suitable conduct in matters of this nature, is the likely effect that the conduct may have on a reasonable by-stander. If a member accepts a free cup of coffee from a trader in the early hours of the morning, such an action could be seen as customary and nominal hospitality. However, if the officer solicited the benefit, acceptance of it becomes inappropriate, as does acceptance of any benefit on a continuing basis.

Resolution

In this case the member has acted inappropriately. Regardless of what the intention of the Managing Director is, the member's actions may lead to a public perception that acceptance of the hospitality will have a bearing on the outcome of the tendering process. The appropriate action for the member in this instance would have been to decline the invitation.

* * * * *

Situation - Safety Obligation

An investigating officer returns to the scene of an arson with an offender to clarify their version of an offence. The investigating officer wears safety equipment while re-entering the scene but does not offer or supply any such protective equipment to the offender.

Discussion

Members of the Service are required to comply with the duty of care provisions of all legislation relevant to the safety and well-being of others. This is particularly so where members of the public or other staff are under a member's control or care in the workplace. That duty of care also extends to suspects for offences and all persons in the control, custody or care of members of the Service.

Resolution

In the situation above, even if the protective equipment was not readily available the actions of the investigating officer are not in compliance with the requirements of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. Under the application of this code and the diligence principle, members are expected to conduct their duties in a manner that meets all legislative, Government and Service standards. The member in this example has not met the required standards either under the legislation or this code.

* * * * *

Situation - Work Allocation

The officer in charge of an establishment has allocated a range of tasks that normally fall within their area of responsibility to subordinate staff. One subordinate with limited experience in the Service has been allocated the task of managing the station budget. The member approaches the officer in charge and protests on the grounds that budget management should be the responsibility of someone with appropriate experience and skills. Further, that they do not possess any training or experience in such matters. The member does not feel that they are capable of performing the tasks involved in the budget process without further training. The officer in charge insists that the member undertake the task and refuses to assist the member with training.

Discussion

The equitable allocation of tasks and responsibilities to subordinates is a one of the more difficult jobs of supervisors. It is acceptable and even desirable to detail greater responsibility to subordinates for the purpose of providing experience in supervisory and management tasks where it is appropriate to do so. There are, however, a wide range of factors that need to be taken into account in taking such action. This includes the ability of the member to successfully complete the task, taking into account their individual training and skills, the resources available, the normal workload of the member and whether or not it is appropriate to detail the task to that member.

Resolution

In the example given, the subject member has limited experience within the Service and has indicated that they do not possess the skills or abilities to perform the duties of the task allotted. Further, the member does not believe that the task allocation is appropriate to their knowledge, abilities or skills. The decision of the officer in charge to persist with the allocation of the task to the member without supplying appropriate training and support would not be appropriate. Alternatively, had the subordinate possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the task, together with the necessary support, resources and time, the allocation of the task could only be viewed as acceptable and appropriate to both the member and the Service.

Situation - Use of Service Property for Private Purposes

A member takes a Service laptop computer home and uses it for a purely private purpose.

Discussion

The issue of members using Service equipment or resources for private purposes is one that is difficult to resolve in practice. Whether it is appropriate to use Service equipment or resources for private purposes is dependent on the circumstances of each case and the nature of the equipment or resources used.

It is unlikely that the use of any Service consumable for private purposes would be deemed appropriate. For example, the use of Service paper to print personal correspondence or the taking home of Service issue sun cream for use on holidays would be deemed inappropriate.

In the case of non-consumable items, the test of appropriateness will also be a product of the circumstances. For example, a member who has been granted the use of a Service vehicle to permit travel for court appearance the next day, uses the vehicle during the evening to take the family shopping. The member in this instance would be in breach of the provisions of the code under the economy and efficiency principle. However, had the member used the Service vehicle (e.g. to take a family member to hospital in the absence of ready access to personal transport) it is unlikely that the member would be subject to a breach of the code under this principle.

Resolution

It is clearly impossible to provide a definitive list of allowable and inappropriate private uses of Service equipment or resources. Whether the use is acceptable or not must be determined on the circumstances of each individual case. While an answer will be obvious in the majority of cases, where there is any doubt the final test must be one of reasonableness. This test might be applied by asking whether a reasonable member of the public would consider the use of the resources or equipment appropriate.

The actions of the member in the example are not appropriate and would represent abreach of the provisions of the code.

* * * * *