Police has updated guidelines and processes for staff when filing proceedings which require consent from the Attorney-General.
The work follows a comprehensive audit of 663 prosecutions since 2008, which found that in 10 cases there were charges filed without consent that resulted in a conviction.
Of the 10 convictions, four were for sexual offences under the Crimes Act 1961, three were for inciting racial disharmony under the Human Rights Act 1993, and there were three offences under the Aviation Crimes Act 1972.
“Police apologises for the error and we have taken immediate steps to ensure this situation cannot be repeated,” Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming says.
“We believe that the error has occurred when Police Officers, acting in good faith, arranged for charges to be filed without realising that the Attorney-General’s consent was required.”
Strengthened guidance has been issued to all relevant staff and a new daily national reporting system is being instituted.
Additionally, Police has introduced a new safeguard to our ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Intelligence Application (NIA) to ensure prosecutions requiring consent from the Attorney-General are flagged and followed up as required.
Where charges requiring the Attorney-General’s consent have been filed without that consent, any resulting convictions are deemed unlawful.
The affected individuals are eligible to file appeals to have the convictions overturned.
Police has been contacting the affected individuals to advise them of this issue and are working through the appeal option available to them.
Police has offered to facilitate their legal representation.
Police has also been contacting the victims in these cases to explain what has occurred and facilitate any support that may be required.
In the majority of cases, those affected were also convicted on other charges that did not require the Attorney-General’s consent.
The convictions and sentences on those charges still stand and are not impacted by this error.
There are two cases on a single charge only where the Attorney General’s consent was required but not obtained. The affected individuals received community-based sentences.
