Coroner & Legal
In Tasmania?
A FORMER police officer’s reputation has been irredeemably damaged by the biased actions of the Police Integrity Commission during an investigation into allegations he was linked to the disappearance of a Bathurst woman, Janine Vaughan, says the PIC’s watchdog.
The officer, Brad Hosemans, had not been given a chance to respond to allegations against him, and had not been allowed to hear the evidence of the key witness, even though her allegations were later published in a media release despite his lawyer’s objections.
In a recent report the Inspector of the PIC, Peter Moss, QC, criticised the investigation, the hearings and public report into the matter, codenamed Operation Rani.
Advertisement: Story continues below
He said the commission had failed to discharge its legal obligations towards Mr Hosemans, a former sergeant with Bathurst police, and had denied him procedural fairness.
The report is the latest in a series of reports by Mr Moss critical of the PIC. It comes after the unexpected resignation of the PIC’s commissioner, John Pritchard, earlier this month, less than a year before the expiry of his five-year term as the head of the commission.
Ms Vaughan disappeared after leaving a Bathurst nightclub in December 2001. She is believed to have been murdered, but her remains have never been found.
In June 2005, police received an anonymous letter implicating Mr Hosemans. A year later the PIC held public hearings into the matter, including evidence from a witness, RA1, who alleged she had seen Ms Vaughan in Mr Hosemans’ car with her hands tied, around the time of her disappearance.
Mr Moss found the commission treated RA1 in a way that ”may give rise to the impression of a lack of objectivity”.
Even though the PIC had told Mr Hosemans he would be asked to give further evidence, it decided not to recall him, failing to give him a chance to refute the allegations.
Its final report – released more than a year after the end of hearings – included allegations never raised with Mr Hosemans’ barrister.
Even though there had been no evidence to support RA1’s allegation, the PIC’s report did not mention this. It also failed to say the investigation had not found anything to contradict Mr Hosemans’ evidence that he had never met Ms Vaughan.
The report appeared to be ”distinctly unbalanced, biased and grossly unfair” and damaging to Mr Hosemans’ reputation, Mr Moss found.