RIGHT ROYAL COVER- UP

Details of the Royal Commission into the affair of police informer 3838 are emerging. CAA applauds some wise choices made by government.

But the terms of reference seem to compel the Commissioners to AVOID searching for the truth about some aspects of the case, to cover them up. 

The High Court has ruled that Victoria Police engaged in “reprehensible conduct”, but it seems clear enough that they were aided and abetted – indeed counselled – by others. Those aiders and abettors do not seem to fall within the ambit of the Royal Commission, which then becomes a, "Right Royal", Cover-up.

The Victorian Government, which set down those terms of reference for the Commissioners, has a history of covering up their own reprehensible conduct and that of Victoria Police. 

For example, after promising full cooperation with the police investigation into the Red Shirts Rort, the Government stood idly by while police inexplicably delayed - “dragged the chain” – when it came to asking the politicians involved for their explanations. The Government stood idly by while politicians were protected against treatment like that meted out to “foot soldiers” in that affair.

And, in a separate matter, the Government is fully aware that Vicpol systematically engaged in deliberately breaching Section 169 of the Police Act. 

CAA contends that for police to deliberately breach their own statute is truly reprehensible conduct, and that for government to knowingly stand idly by, effectively condoning that breach, is even more reprehensible, as a breach of its own fundamental responsibilities.

Interesting that the High Court damns some conduct as reprehensible, and contrary to the sworn duty of police, without identifying a statute to the contrary, while our own State Government has condoned police deliberately breaking its own statutory laws!

So we ask who is being protected by the restricted Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission, and again seek the early establishment of the wide-ranging review of policing, proposed in 2017 by CAA.