 Are you all set to go? Let me introduce myself, I've noted some of you, Peter Martin is my name, I'm the Assistant Commissioner, responsible for the Ethical Standards Command. In short, I am responsible for the internal governance arrangements within the organisation and as part of my portfolio responsibilities I'm also responsible for the Internal Investigation Branch. So complaint management, internal investigations is generally my domain and the prosecution of this former officer ultimately is something that was facilitated by the Ethical Standards Command and I'm overall responsible for that investigation and prosecution of that particular individual and I'm happy with that to take any questions that you might have with respect to this. Can I thank you in advance for your interest in this matter? This is an issue of great concern to the organisation as I think that you have seen as a result of the way that we've dealt with it and the way that we've responded to your interest and the community interest in this matter. I'm in your hands. Peter, are they still in the service? They are currently at least three officers that we are looking at with respect to disciplinary matters and they are current officers. There are people depicted in the vision who are still members of the service that are subject of those investigations. At this particular stage, having regard for the fact that the investigation is still current, I'm not prepared to speculate in terms of which one of those officers are still members of the organisation, but I can assure you that all of those matters with respect to current suing members are currently the subject of investigations by the Ethical Standards Command investigators. What are they being investigated for? They're being investigated for internal disciplinary matters. Those matters are broad ranging but specifically with respect to their knowledge of the matters depicted in the video and that is the central theme with respect to the matter subject of investigation. That is amongst the dimensions of the investigation. Why were their faces blurred? The reason that their faces were blurred in the vision is because that these matters are as yet unresolved, that they are not finalised and to ensure from an administrative law perspective that they are afforded procedural fairness otherwise referred to as natural justice. That's correct. As far as criminal law goes, they haven't been charged with anything, so if they are able to do identifications accurately. No, from a criminal perspective they have not been charged and it's unlikely at this stage that they would be charged with a criminal offence. What about the... That's correct. Is there any chance or is there a potential investigation that they will be facing any criminal charges? No, they won't be. They've left the organisation, they have separated from the organisation and as such they will now not be pursued, nor can they be pursued with respect to other matters. So isn't there new legislation? Yes, but that legislation came in at a certain time and these matters predate that particular matter. So at this particular stage they would need to have been more recent matters that would fall under the province of that particular piece of legislation. And that's regarding superannuation? I'm sorry? That's in particular regard to superannuation matters and that sort of thing? I can't talk about the superannuation aspects of this, that's not within my domain, but what it is is that particular piece of legislation is more recent legislation designed to pursue people after they've left units of public administration so that there is a formal finding with respect to those particular people after they've left a government department. So are they still working at the same station? I can't comment on that, I'm sorry. But... Are you designing those... I'm sorry, I'm not a superannuation expert, nor am I a HR specialist. My issues are with respect to the internal investigation matters and the criminal investigations with respect to these matters. In terms of their entitlements or otherwise, that's not an area of specialisation for me. Just to be clear, some of those people in the video with their faces glued are still with the service and being invested in this program. I want to be really clear on that, yes, that is correct. There are people depicted within the video image who are still current serving officers and are now subject of internal investigation. So what can... No, look, I'm sorry, you'd have to appreciate from my perspective that as this is a current investigation and as that I am responsible ultimately for this investigation, any speculation potentially with respect to the range of offences... I know that you are and that... Okay, if we can deal with matters hypothetically and not specifically speaking about this particular matter, and I want to stress this because I can't talk about these particular matters because to some degree that would presuppose that I've formed a view with respect to what would likely be an outcome from this matter. But there is a full suite of options available to a prescribed officer that might deal with a particular internal disciplinary matter. That suite of options can include dismissal down to a caution or a reprimand. Now, that's not to say that this will be a likely outcome with respect to these matters, but that is to explain the implications of an internal disciplinary matter that is substantiated. Well, can I say to you that the criminal investigation part of this followed a normal criminal course. This came to light in May 2008 and these matters were investigated very promptly from my perspective. We deployed on the ground investigators from Ethical Standards Command in a very, very timely fashion and the investigation was concluded in a very reasonable time frame. The court process naturally has various vagaries and it does take time. There are certain disciplinary matters that could not be pursued until such time as the criminal matters are out of the way. Those matters have only recently been finalised, as finalised as a result of sentencing that occurred earlier this week that has now opened the door for us to pursue the internal disciplinary issues. That's precisely right. I think that this will be a reasonably short process, having regard for the fact that the investigation with respect to these matters is all but concluded. Rankings of you officers. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? These are reasonably junior officers at the constable, senior constable level. There's at least three officers, current serving officers that are subject to investigation. These are constable, senior constable officers. What was there another? Just excuse me for a minute. The complaint of the officer that led to this particular matter was the first complaint that I'm aware of that led to the investigation occurring. I am aware that there is speculation with respect to another officer that allegedly had come forward, but that is not within our holdings and I would dispute that that occurred. So I don't have any knowledge of that whatsoever. The complaint from the officer that commits this, the female officer to which you refer, heralded the investigation that I launched. We were aware of a previous complaint that had come that had come forward, but the officer that has recently been reported in the media as having reported that particular matter, we have no knowledge of that whatsoever. This had come through as a result of another means. And as a result of the investigation that had occurred from the Ethical Standards Command, we were active in eliciting a further complaint, the third complaint that previously hadn't been made to police. The previous complaint? That's correct. Was that treated seriously, not legally? That complaint was recorded appropriately. There was intervention taken at the local level. And to some degree, the complaint that occurred post that put that earlier complaint into a very significant light. I would say to you that there was an escalation brought about by virtue of the fact that the second complaint then caused the first complaint to be looked at in a different light. Can I also say to you that that earlier complaint that we're talking about was also interwaven with matters before court. And there was an allegation and a counter allegation. And moreover, we needed to wait until that matter had been finalised in the court process. But with the second complaint that came forward, it caused us to go back to that complaint and interrogate that complaint. And naturally enough, that caused a great concern for me and for the investigation. The first complaint that I referred to was the 18th of January 2008. And that was the matter that was interwaven with court. And the subsequent matter occurred in May 2008. So some months later in the same year. That's correct. Can I also say to you that there was a third complaint that was elicited that was previously unknown to the service that we elicited as a result of the investigation. We went back and found a further complaint. And this former officer was charged with that particular matter as well. That had never previously been the subject of a complaint to police. The much earlier complaint. The third complaint had come from the victim to a police officer. I'm sorry, it had come from the first complaint, the much earlier one back in 2007. Just to be clear, that earlier one was the one that we elicited as a result of the investigation. It had never been subject to investigation. There was a complaint back in early 2008. That particular complaint had come from a victim. The third complaint and the most recent one that had really commenced the investigation was as a result of the junior officer coming forward and making the complaint to... It was in May 2008. And it was in May 2008. So the second and third. The second one was early 2008. The third one was May 2008. And the earlier one, the much, much earlier one, was in fact in 2007. But I would point out that that much earlier one in 2007 was never the subject of a complaint as such. But it was elicited as a result of the investigation that we had facilitated. That's correct. There was never an official complaint made. There was never an official complaint made for the matter that occurred in 2007. But it had not been for the thoroughness of the investigation. We might never have heard about that particular complaint. In hindsight, I've heard of the processes that were in place at that station at the time when that first complaint was made against Mr Price and the resulting action was taken against him at that time. Was it good enough or should it have been referred to at this time? I really can't say at this particular juncture. And the reason for that is that that is the subject of now part of the suite of issues that we're looking at with respect to the investigation by and large. This investigation is focused on the criminal aspects with respect to the former officer. It's focused on also from a disciplinary perspective on the other people that may have had knowledge of this particular matter. But there's another third dimension to this as well. It's the systemic and the structural issues that have contributed to this set of circumstances. And that matter that you've raised just then is part of that ongoing suite of issues that we're looking at. Can I say to you, no, my observation of police officers with respect to this, there is a legal imposition on officers. They have to report matters that are tantamount to misconduct. There's a provision on the Police Service Administration Act that they can't turn a blind eye, they need to report. We have 3,000 or so complaints in the course of a year and I manage those on behalf of the commissioner. 3,000 complaints across Queensland, bearing in mind we're an organisation nudging something like 15,000. Now, some 25% or a quarter of all of those complaints, so 25% of 3,000 are situations in which a police officer or a staff member makes a complaint against another police officer or staff member. And I would say that irrespective of the perceived failings of a particular station at a particular given time, the reality is that people do meet their obligations and there is a high degree of reporting. I beg your pardon. Can I say to you that the five people that left the organisation, I'm not inferring that all of those people were responsible, nor am I inferring that all of those five people were present. The question was asked of us previously, who has left the organisation. There were five people shortly after this particular event and over a period of time that left the Queensland Police Service. Thank you for your point.