The investigations carried out in the course of Operation Shield reveal a significant concern in relation to the proper record keeping of drug seizures and exhibits. At the closure of Operation Jetski, which resulted in the seizure of a large body of station records, officers of the Commissioner’s Inspectorate were seconded for a short time to assist the investigators with a critical assessment of the record keeping concerning drug seizures and exhibits. More recently, the Inspectorate has undertaken its own investigation of records kept at various stations in different regions to assess the correlation between the records of quantities of drugs kept and recorded as exhibits and the details of their ultimate destruction. This work of the Inspectorate, whether in aid of an investigation or done independently, well illustrates the desirable level of cooperation which is possible between the two agencies.
This more recent work of the Inspectorate is contained in a report The State Drugs System Assessment which has recently gone to the Commissioner. This initiative was prompted by Operation Shield evidence given in the Commission’s investigative hearings relating to the mishandling by police of drugs and drug exhibits. The officers of the Inspectorate who were responsible for the research and the compilation of the report conferred with the Operation Shield team before undertaking the project.
The research and the consequential report had a relatively narrow focus, namely, the relationship between the drugs recorded as having been seized as exhibits and those later destroyed. Nonetheless, the quality of the work carried out, not surprisingly, revealed a number of findings of concern and suggested courses of action. It highlighted the need for a ‘comprehensive examination’ of all drug-handling issues and the adoption of ‘an integrated and realistic approach’ to the problems identified by the evidence revealed by Operation Shield and related problems.
That report has recommended the establishment of a project group to examine the problems and to develop a suitable response. Operation Shield clearly established the need for such a review and a re-evaluation of current procedures. The initiative developed by the Inspectorate must be commended and the recommended review must be strongly endorsed. Compliance with official procedures and requirements is, in the end, a matter of supervision, and this will be referred to below.
In the course of Operation Shield, it was so often necessary for investigators to go to the station records to attempt to confirm the truth or otherwise of allegations or to seek to determine whether possibly corrupt conduct could be supported by lack of compliance on the part of suspect officers. Again it emerged from time to time that investigations were hindered by the failure of police officers to deal properly with seized material in the official records or indices. Often times, the results obtained from the records were equivocal in furthering the investigation. Perhaps it was only a case of sloppy bookkeeping; on the other hand, it may have been an indication of a corrupt or improper dealing with the seized material. A core finding of the
Inspectorate’s research is that ‘only 70.8% of drugs seized are confirmed destroyed’. Other cases require explanation and/or investigation. No conclusive finding should be drawn at this stage. At the same time, this finding, however tentative, is sufficient to warrant the establishment of the suggested project group to undertake the
comprehensive review.
T
HE
U
SE OF
E
Electronic mail is now a fact of life. The capacity to communicate in writing almost instantaneously from a distance with another person is now one of the more mundane features of the ‘information superhighway’. The Queensland Police Service, not surprisingly, now uses to its advantage its capacity to communicate by e-mail. Again it is not surprising that individual police officers use the official system to
communicate with others in the Service for their own reasons and not always for official purposes. This is no doubt legitimate if the system is used properly.
In the course of Operation Shield the investigation of police suspects revealed their use of the e-mail facility for their own improper reasons. A few examples will suffice. This e-mail message sent from one officer at a particular station to a particular person at another on 4 December 1996 at 4.51 a.m., said:
Do you remember the Going Away present I got you? Yes that fancy little wooden and glass paper weight. Well I have a whole lot more of them and I thought that you could sell them off for me to some of your friends or could use them yourself or Willy could use them etc etc.
Gimme a yell and I’ll sent you some pictures of my newest project along with a Christmas Card.
Cosmo. Your good buddy and shy friend.
These officers were suspect. The investigation of them suggests that the ‘going away present’ was an LSD tablet or ‘trip’ and the reference to the officer having ‘a whole lot more of them’ is a reference to his possession of a quantity of various types of ‘trips’ which were being marketed within the corrupt arrangement of which he was a part. His request ‘that you could sell them off for me to some of your friends’ was his apparent attempt to recruit the other officer into the scheme. The e-mail message wassigned: ‘Cosmo your good buddy and shy friend’. Investigations revealed that it was unlikely that the person to whom it was sent actually received it.
This exchange occurred a few weeks later with the despatch of the following message between the same officers, but in reverse, part of which reads:
Just a short note to let you know I found some property belonging to you. It is a little black book with lots and lots of lies in it.
The ‘little black book’ was a reference to one police officer’s police notebook of which the other officer had possession.
At 4.59 on 8 January 1997, a male officer at a country station sent the following e- mail message to a female officer at a city station:
SMEE AGAIN
Yeh the golden haired boys are … (BIG SUCK) and …
SHOCK HORROR–NOT IF YOU COULD SEE IT. IT’S SICKENING, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS … –NOW SOMETHING IS DEFINITELY GOING ON THERE–SHE IS SO WELL LOOKED AFTER, I GOT UP HER ABOUT HER FIGURES AND I GOT IN THE SHIT.
THEN HE TIELLS ME TO GET UP EVERYONE ELSE, BUT THERE’S ARE OK.
ANYWAY I’M ALIVE, WHITE AND HAPPY ABOUT MYSELF SO WHO GIVES A RATS.
NO WAY WILL I TRANSFER BACK TO ANYWHERE IN BRISSY EVER–IT’S ALL YOURS, TELL … HE JUMPS WHEN YOU SPEAK. HA HA HA!!!
SEE YA
This message prompted this reply from the female officer at 5.47 a.m. on the same day:
I really hate favourites. I guess because I have never been one as I do not possess the skill of BROWN NOSING. … must be in all her glory. good luck. (LIPO HEAD) I really miss Airlie Beach but I do not miss the station or being a police officer at Airlie. I hate clicky stations. and EXCUSE me, … does not say "how high". I have actually not spoken to … for ages. You have been my e mail friend. Aren’t you lucky. So you didn’t get to shute Harbour. Oh well maybe tomorrow.
You can even make me a cuppa or a jam muffin while your at it or massage me to sleep. HA. well thats about my 5th e mail to you tonight so I guess I will leave you alone for about 12 hours. Sleep tight.
Luv …
Hardly official police business!
The concern, however, is that during Operation Shield when attempts were made to reveal the details of communications between officers, it was found that after a short time the e-mail was downloaded and no longer stored. This hampered the complete investigation of possible improper relationships. It seems clear that there is the need for establishing a full audit trail. The experience of Operation Shield supports this strong recommendation.