But are not the police allowed to go all out to get evidence against a suspect they believe is guilty?
On July 20, 1999, in the Queensland Parliament, at the time Bill D'Arcy was being investigated, (in answer to a question from Allan Grice MP), the Minister for Police, Mr Tom Barton articulated the duties of police very clearly.
...police officers have an obligation to consider all evidence gathered, whether detrimental or beneficial to the alleged offender, before charging or commencing any proceedings.'In the conduct of an investigation a police officer gathers evidence from all known and available witnesses, as well as collecting any available physical evidence that is relevant to the facts In issue. … If a statement is not obtained from a potential witness, the prosecution should provide the person's name to the defence …
Section 10.21 of the Police Service Administration Act provides for action against persons who knowingly make false complaints which call for a police investigation.
(Queensland Parliament, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), July 20 1999, Question on Notice No 683 p2630)
Particulars obtained by Freedom of Information (FOI) processes and other sources clearly reveal that many people, who defended D'Arcy, were interviewed and their evidence not presented. Marie Doyle, D'Arcy's fellow teacher at the Logan Village School described the police tactics very clearly. In her video interview she stated that the police approached her at least six times to make a false statement implicating D'Arcy in sexual misconduct with children.
Here is the Question and Answer in full.
Questions on notice. 683. 20 July 1999
Complaints, Investigation by Police Officers
Mr GRICE asked the Minister for Police and Corrective Services (27/5/99)—
(1) When investigating a complaint do police as a matter of course have to record information
from witnesses that is detrimental to their case against the defendant; if not, why not?
(2) When the tendered information directly conflicts with the complaints, is it legally and morally right to hide the evidence or take no statement and leave it to the defendant's legal resources to search out the proof?
(3) When complaints by complainants are clearly fabricated and cannot be substantiated by geographically, physical or visual evidence, what action would the police force take to produce the best possible results in the public interest?
(4) If cases conducted by one or other of the Police Task Force proves that justice and the public purse is suffering because of their methods, what action will he take to initiate an inquiry?
Mr BARTON (24/6/99):
(1) In exercising the discretion whether to charge a person, police officers have an obligation to consider all evidence gathered, whether detrimental or beneficial to the alleged offender, before charging or commencing any proceedings.
In the conduct of an investigation a police officer gathers evidence from all known and available witnesses, as well as collecting any available physical evidence that is relevant to the facts in issue.
(2) Police officers have a responsibility to gather all available and relevant information that relates to the facts in issue and consider all information that is known at the time prior to charging and prosecuting an alleged offender. If a statement is not obtained from a potential witness, the prosecution should provide the person's name to the defence. Clearly, it is not the prosecution's role to obtain some type of evidence, e.g. character evidence relating to an
accused, for the defence.
(3) Section 10.21 of the Police Service Administration Act provides for action against persons who knowingly make false complaints which call for a police investigation. There is a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units for an offence against this section. However, the section does not apply to a representation relating to an offence, or the circumstances of an offence that has actually been committed. The commencement of a prosecution under this section would depend on the circumstances of the false complaint.