Dear Independent Police Conduct Authority,

To Whom It May Concern:

Would the IPCA please explain the following sections of the IPCA Act 1988. I may have further questions, depending upon the answers received.

Section 25, IPCA Act 1988
Protection and privileges of witnesses, etc
s25(4) Except in proceedings for perjury within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961 in respect of sworn testimony given before the Authority, or for an offence against section 37,—
(a) no statement made or answer given by any person in the course of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority shall be admissible in evidence against that or any other person in any court or in any inquiry or other proceeding; and

(b) no evidence in respect of proceedings before the Authority shall be given against any person.

1. In relation to s4(a), please interpret what the Act means by “any person”.
2. In relation to s4(a), please interpret what constitutes a “statement” or “answer”.
3. In relation to s4(a), what does “no statement made or answer given by any person …. shall be admissible in evidence …." mean?
4. In relation to s4(a), what does "in any court or in any inquiry or other proceeding” mean?
5. In relation to s4(b), what does “no evidence, in respect of proceedings before the Authority, shall be given against any person” mean?

Section 33, IPCA Act 1988
Proceedings privileged
s33(3) Anything said or any information given or any document or thing produced by any person in the course of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority under this Act shall be privileged in the same manner as if the investigation or proceedings were proceedings in a court.

In relation to s33(3), please explain what "shall be privileged in the same manner as if the investigation or proceedings were proceedings in a court" means.

s37 Offences
s37 Every person commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who,—
(c) makes any statement or gives any information to the Authority, or to any person exercising powers under this Act, knowing that the statement or information is false or misleading.

1. In relation to s37(c), please explain what constitutes a false statement or information.
2. In relation to s37(c), please explain what constitutes a misleading statement or [misleading] information.
3. In relation to s.37(c), please interpret "knowing [that the statement or information is false or misleading]"?

Yours faithfully,

Jenny Mondial

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

In regard to reply and with regard for s.25(4), (a) which states:
"... no statement made or answer given by any person in the course
of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority shall
be admissible in evidence against that or any other person in any
court or in any inquiry or other proceeding"

which organisation would be responsible for prosecuting a breach of s25(4) if it were known and able to be evidenced that the complainant in an IPCA investigation had taken copies of their sworn statements and other material given as evidence in that investigation, and had indicated the result of that investigation and had distributed it amongst other people and to an organisation and that information was now forming the basis of the defence in a court matter with another civil organisation.

Is this not a breach of s.25(4)(a)?
The information is in the exact form as it is in the IPCA investigation file.

Additionally, what would be the consequences if some of that information were also able to be proven to be untrue, or a forged copy of material which was unable to be verified as to its truthful content?

Yours sincerely,

JennyM

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

Your answer is in contradiction to the provision in the Act, for such information to be inadmissible in other circumstances, and in essence infers the provision in the Act is redundant.

If this is the case, what is the purpose of such a provision within the enactment and what is to prevent any person using any information any time any where, not matter its truth or otherwise despite such a provision being made in the Act?

In regard to the information which has no verification, it is a copy of a 'transcript' of a teleconference within a matter, which has been typed up by a person who was a party to it, recorded it at home, and was tendered to the IPCA as a true document. s.35(3) of the Disputes Tribunal Rules Act 1989 prevents parties from obtaining recordings or copies of that which is intended as a record for the Referee.

(3) Nothing in this rule enables a person to search, inspect, or take a copy of, or limits or affects any entitlement that any parties to an appeal to a District Court have under the Act or under
rules of court to access or be served with,—
(a) the record that section 51(2) of the Act requires a Referee to keep;

The Court in that matter has already stated no legal copy has been made or furnished.
If it is not real, and has no provenance, and cannot be verified, it must be a forgery.
Even if the person's own recording still exists, it is not a verifiable recording nor admissible as it was taken without advising the other parties, and without their permission.
This forgery was presented to the IPCA as a real document "transcript of teleconference" with no way of the investigation verifying the truthfulness of it, then or now.
The investigators did not verify the truthfulness of it and there is no evidence of correspondence questioning its veracity.
The person's barrister has confirmed this person did the recording from their home.
The other parties were unaware this recording was being made.
The speculation as to mal-intent is strong given the person was found by a civil tribunal to have deprived a person of their property, contrary to the Police position.

Yours sincerely,

JennyM

Dear Pieter Roozendaal,

In relation to my inquiry regarding application of s25(4) IPCA Act, please provide me with copies of documents or emails regarding the agency's policies or internal guidance to staff on implementing aspects of legislation this aspect of the legislation.

Yours sincerely,

JennyM