FALCONER BEATS RAP ON NAMING OFFICERS

FORMER WA police commissioner Bob Falconer has escaped sanction after
naming six drug squad detectives under investigation by the Anti-Corruption
Commission.

The officers complained to State Ombudsman Murray Allen that naming them
broke secrecy provisions in the ACC Act, damaged reputations and devastated
family life.

But Mr Allen wrote to the six last Thursday rejecting further action
against Mr Falconer, who returned to Victoria last year.

The decision has infuriated the officers who have waited more than two
years for an outcome.

The officers missed the 12-month deadline to launch a prosecution under the
ACC Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions refused to prosecute Mr
Falconer under the WA Criminal Code last year.

"The Ombudsman let the matter become stale at law," said former inspector
Chris Cull, one of the six who vowed to pursue the issue.

An ACC special investigation by Geoffrey Miller QC, now a Supreme Court
judge, recommended disciplinary action against the six in December 1997.

Mr Falconer suspended them from duty before the Supreme Court ruled the ACC
was an investigatory body that could not recommend disciplinary action.

Five of the six officers were re-instated in 1998, one resigned and a final
outcome is awaited on the sixth who is fighting two dismissal notices.

The Ombudsman told the six on Thursday there might be occasions when the
public interest might justify disclosing the identity of a person who has
been suspended or charged.

"For these reasons, on one view, Mr Falconer's action in naming you (to
prevent inaccurate media speculation about the identity of the officers
concerned and the unfair labelling of the whole of the drug squad), having
regard to the high public profile of the ACC investigation and the previous
public statements of the ACC, was justifiable," he wrote.

"On another view, you should not have been named because at that time you
were only under suspension while a decision about your future in the police
service was being made and you also had the opportunity to make further
submissions to the ACC."

Mr Allen could not justify recommending further action against Mr Falconer,
despite an assumption that the naming may have been contrary to law.