Tasmanian Times


Johnston retires


David Bartlett, MP


Monday, 1 February 2010

Resolution of Jack Johnston complaints
Premier David Bartlett today announced that a resolution has been achieved in the code of conduct complaints against Police Commissioner Jack Johnston.

“I have been advised by the Hon. Geoffrey Eames AM QC that all parties, including Mr Johnston, have agreed that the code of conduct complaints can be resolved by Mr Johnston resigning from his appointments as Commissioner of Police and Secretary, Department of Police and Emergency Management.

“This is on the basis of agreed terms of separation for Mr Johnston and the complainants withdrawing their complaints and agreeing that they be dismissed without investigation.”

In his letter to the Premier Mr Eames recommends:

“It is in the public interest that these complaints be resolved as the parties propose. The complaints are nearly two years old and, unless conciliated, the considerable emotional and financial costs that have accompanied them to date would continue and intensify over considerable time, to the detriment of important public institutions and all the people involved.

“I have accepted this recommendation and thank all involved for their willingness to conciliate these complaints.

“It is often not easy to put the public interest before strongly held personal views,” Mr Bartlett said.

The terms of Mr Johnston’s separation are:

· The Crown will pay Mr Johnston’s legal costs of and incidental to both the criminal proceedings and the code of conduct matter. This amounts to $425,000.

· The Crown is to provide an indemnity in respect of all legal costs and disbursements reasonably incurred by Mr Johnston hereafter in defending or otherwise opposing any criminal proceedings instituted against him by the Crown, and which are based on or otherwise depend upon the same facts and matters which formed the basis of any of those charges against Mr Johnston which were permanently stayed by order of Justice Evans on 5 August 2009.

· Mr Johnston will also receive a payment of 75% of his annual remuneration of $244,899 per annum plus other entitlements, in line with his contractual entitlements.

Mr Bartlett also confirmed that he had written a personal letter to Mr Johnston thanking him for his 42 years of service to Tasmania Police and the public service generally.

Mr Ellis and Mr Miller have written withdrawing their complaints.

Mr Bartlett also released a letter and full statement from Mr Eames in relation to the conciliated resolution.

Mark’s view HERE

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Mark

    February 1, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    They’re paying him so much to go away because it’s cheaper/better than keeping him on. Someone has worked out what the actual implications are of trying to reinstate him, and this is the upshot. I don’t think he can walk away with any self-congratulation, if they’re willing to pay him so much to leave, it means they’ve assessed the cost of him staying as more than that. People made wrong decisions a long time ago (appointing him, expecting Police Commissioners to reveal what should have been secret, etc) and now we’re paying for those incorrect decisions. While we retain the incompetent politicians we’ve got now, they will continue to make poor decisions like this.

  2. VeryOldBill( sorry , pseudonym by necessity )

    February 1, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    I predicted this in another post – poor old “Sir” Max Bingham has no doubt been prevailed on by Johnston to comment, claiming he was “forced out”. Why don’t you tell us exactly what the complaints were and what he admitted to, Max/ Jack or why doesn’t a feeble media question this rather than blandly reporting the Big Lie that is was “just ” threats?

    Why doesn’t the feeble media have a look at Jacky’s submission to the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Condust and compare it to what he did and ask him how can he say one thing and do another.
    The Police Service is delighted to see the back of him. Jacky, Lennon’s lackey. Telling him when he was being investigated. ….

  3. ron

    February 1, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Can any of you imagine what this man’s retirement party is going to look like?

    What I wouldn’t give….

  4. salamander

    February 1, 2010 at 1:02 am

    In Tasmania it seems to be only the innocent who stick around to face the charges. Others get a nice fat payout, thanks very much, sure we will see them again.

  5. Steve

    February 1, 2010 at 12:39 am

    $183,000pa to walk away? Where do I sign up?!

  6. Pete Godfrey

    January 31, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Sorry this is unbelievable, the top ranking police officer threatens his employees who are asked to investigate him and then he gets rewarded by being immune from prosecution and gets a pension and his costs paid.
    Bet normal Tasmanians wouldn’t get this sort of treatment.
    So far the messages we have from the behavoir of our members of government and the public service are:
    It is okay to bully you will be rewarded
    It is okay to lie just wait and you will get your job back
    It is okay to be an imbecile you will never be found guilty of fleecing the public of millions
    It is okay to have been a parliamentarian and a solicitor and corrupted the system you will be found guilty but not charged.
    So it is open slather

    Maybe we have a new bumper sticker on the way

    “Tasmania anything goes”

  7. Mark

    January 31, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Why didn’t the Mercury carry the stories that the Australian carried on this subject? Matthew Denholm has additional details on too many occasions. Sue Neales has lifted the quality a long way, but there’s still something missing. Both newspapers are owned by News Limited, what’s going on? Maybe the journalists concerned can explain.

  8. Jarvis Cocker

    January 31, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    So, correct me if I’m missing something, but…

    The poor old public don’t find out the nature of the complaints, but we still pick up the tab?

    How can it possibly be in the public interest to `resolve these complaints’ by hiding them forever, and paying the man what amounts to an obscene retirement benefit?

    As a struggling taxpayer, I’d much rather see these `complaints’ fully investigated, to ensure that any payout from the public purse is appropriate.

    Talking about sweeping dirty linen under the carpet, or whatever bad metaphors apply in this sort of case. And why do we pay the legal fees? Last time Jarvis was wrongly accused by Jack’s underlings, there was no suggestion that Bartles would write a cheque to cover my not insignificant costs.

    Tassie is fucked. Time to move to the Whitsundays, methinks.

  9. john Hayward

    January 31, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    This private negotiation should put an end, once and for all, to all controversy about the integrity of Tassie governance.

    It would be kind of nice, however, if “the public interest” could be redefined along more conventional lines to include those not residing within the Tas Inc tent, i.e. the public.

    John Hayward

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top