I've attempted to aggregate various news items by presenting such group of news items as comparisons to indicate mishandling of government affairs and/or probable cause in relation to other news items.
|Posted on February 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM|
The (criminally UN-diagnosed implant smudgeS in the sight centres on both sides at the back of my brain NMRI above - bottom of pink picture) mountains of compelling overwhelming evidence indicates that Hawker Britton was formed by the Australian Labor Party and Australian Freemasons in the 1990's for the specific purpose of planning the secreted murder (assassination of body and character) of a seemingly harmless small business owner and local politician (big fish little pond) named Janette Gail Francis to her parents and town Councillor Jenny Hall to her constituents - specifically to protect the reputation of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Freemasons - evidently because Miss Francis (Clr / Mrs Hall) had (has even more now) enough hard and conclusive evidence to screw the bejesus out of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Freemasons.
Click here - This is my white Australian Story of secreted parliamentary systematic torture slavery rape attempted assassination and premeditated murder right here in down town worthless bloody hypocritical effing Australia.
I am Miss Francis, in the 1990's was known in my very small country town of The Oaks NSW as mother and wife who minded my own business and refused to carry gossip. I owned a small business called Data Mouse Computers in the neighbouring larger country town of Camden NSW that business was repairing and building computer systems.I was the Vice-President of the Camden Chamber of Commerce and went on to be elected as the local Wollondilly Shire A Ward elected representative 1995-1999. During the time I was a public dignitary - I was surgically raped on the orders of persons at the top of the political ladder in Australian politics. Here I stay in the human waste dump site of denial of medical services 1999-2011 as they await my agonizing torturous death whilst planning their celebrations for their victory over Australian people. This is not democratic but this is the REAL AUSTRALIA.
Some insect thought it a good idea to spread rumours around town that I was a prostitute. It became apparent in the fullness of time that person was NSW Police Detective Bob Bradbury who also lived at The Oaks, his wife worked at the Camden Centrelink office where all my commonwealth Centrelink records were stolen and replaced with material to make me look like a peadophile. This was clearly in response to me having lodged a complaint about a Freemason to NSW Police. The complaint was about incest and my children. The police never bothered to investigate it the courts refused to hear my application for an Apprehended Violence Order to protect my male children from the Freemason predator - that was 1988. In 1989 a book was published by Allen & Unwin in which I was pictured as a murdered bikie moll clearly the two events are linked.
In 1996 I was elected as a member of local government, my next door neighbour violently protested my right to stand for election at the local polling place in The Oaks, his mother owned or ran the little Post Office at The Oaks. The Oaks is a very small country town so despite being known as town Councillor Jenny Hall I was not given the respect of a dignitary because of the rumours emanating from police officer Bob Bradbury and his wife and despite that he claimed I was a bikie moll who'd faked her own death during the Milperra Fathers' Day shootings near the Bankstown Aerodrome, and that I was a peadophile, and a prostitute which was unlawful at that time - I was never questioned by police over any of it - NOT EVER - because it was pure fabrication in the criminally insane tiny minds of Bob Bradbury.and his wife.
However likewise no person has ever been charged for the multiplicity of clearly evident serious crimes inflicted upon me and my children since I attempted to get an AVO to protect my children from sexual assault in 1989. These crimes include drugging, my rape, real estate fraud stealing my Torrens Title in my name ONLY criminally gifting it to my defacto with the blessing of Bob Bradbury and the Commonwealth of Australia, my Mazda 929 car theft, my oldest son's kidnap, my kidnap at gunpoint, my children's surgical rape, and my surgical rape, and my unlawful sacking from my elected position in 1999 on tthe instruction of the Australian Labor Party and Hawker Britton, and multiple break and enter and property damage including one by a Bradbury after which only I was arrested for complaining about the break and enter, and the murdering my ten year old passive and harmless Kelpie after punching out his canine teeth - I found him (Samson the dog) still warm but dead on the morning of my birthday 1st May 1989 in a vacant lot across the road from Bob Bradbury's house after Sammy had gon to sleep inside my house at The Oaks. The Allen & Unwin book was published the month before in April 1989 You might think a person can't get much lower than that - but Bob Bradbury and his likewise criminally insane demented wife and mates sure did. CLEARLY ALL THESE EVENTS ARE LINKED YET POLICE REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE EVEN ONE OF THEM.
So, from where I sit Hawker Britton's Bruce Hawker (buddy to Freemason ex-PM Bob Hawke) and Police Detective Bob Bradbury are the EXACT same person.
If you think the Liberal Party is free of organised crime that ensues from a lobbying group like Hawker Britton, think again www.bartondeakin.com.au/
This accusation is cemented as conclusive evidence by the fact that despite the brazenness of the original defamation against Ms Francis , the police in Ms Francis residential states have refused to enforce the criminal defamation protection written into their own state legislations which “Although it is not uniform across the country (defamation legislation), there is a common thread: its strict liability rules provide strong protection to reputations” E Law- Murdoch University Electronic Journal Of Law- ISSN 1321-8247- Volume 11 Number 3- September 2004 (available on the internet at www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113.txt)
The South Australia and New South Wales Crown solicitor's stance, in 2011, that police don't have to investigate any of these crimes of defamation emanating from either the perpetual library book publication of Allen & Unwin since 1989 and the and every single crime of violence causing suffering or loss of hardship which Miss Francis has suffered (in multiplicity) since 1989 - is an action in further defamation. It's also maintained that each day this book is displayed in a library, offered for sale by a book store or other means, or kept in a private collection, is another action in defamation with the defamatory inference that Miss Francis is insane in claiming the photo in the Allen & Unwin book is a (stolen) photo of Miss Francis at age 27 and not the face of a deceased 14 year old because police would have done something if Miss Francis story was correct – and each day Miss Francis is denied medical diagnosis of the presence of the AIMD Class implants and surgical removal of the implants is also two separate actions in defamation with the defamatory inference in both instances that Miss Francis has been implanted under a Mental Health Act or that Miss Francis is delusional in her thinking because she is unable to accept that the very expensive and routinely services NMRI and CTscan and X-Ray radiology machines have repeatedly malfunctioned all visually reporting multiple items inside Miss Francis that are simply not there.
Which in itself being a serious statement from the lips of a self-professed ‘authorized medical practitioner’ Dr Paul Molyneux and during a professional consultation - is quite insane. (see Youtube mayqueenjane channel - Morphett Vale medical consultationn and also see Jane's faulty NMRI film according to alleged Freemason pedophile supporter or sympathizer Adelaide's Dr Paul Molyneux at www.aimd.webs.com)
Under New South Wales Consolidated Acts, specifically the LIMITATION ACT 1969 - SECT 52, Miss Francis is by no means statute barred from prosecuting any action in Defamation that may have occurred or brought to her attention since she was set upon and surgically raped during her term of public office between 1995 and 1999 as the Wollondilly Shire town Councillor affectionately known as Councillor Jenny Hall.
Under commonwealth law part one of the proof that the person was convicted of the offence by an Australian court is conclusive evidence that the person committed the offence, part two is the in court conviction. We have the conclusive evidence that Ms Francis was criminally defamed by Allen & Unwin and various employees involved in the emergency services provided by the State of New South Wales, police, medical practitioners, state ministerial staff, and an inordinately large number of civilians. What is missing are the convictions which have been unlawfully averted by a series of unlawful assaults on Ms Francis including more unlawful defamations unlawful surgical procedures and unlawful denial of services which can all be categorized under the heading of a mini war against this one woman utilizing the financial backing of the State of New South Wales, the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia, with the sole intent of inciting communal violence motivated by the desire of individuals in positions of power intent on evading arrest for the crime/s they personally have committed as a player in the political campaign of terror ruthlessly flung at this innocent woman under the false flag of patriotism.
The evidence suggests that this matter is remarkably criminal having flow on ability to prosecute in civil court as a direct result of broad spectrum statutory negligence which clearly demonstrated the premeditated intent of a large number of public servants and parliamentary entities to participate in the carriage of these multiple crimes against this one woman that are easily rounded under the banner of 'premeditated heinous torture'
This means of course that the States and the Commonwealth having the overruling portion of negligent liability by the area of statutory negligence being concentrated in systematically or uniformly statutory negligent police services and health services to this woman, Miss Francis, would dictate the legal responsibility or liability to forfeit in settlement, an unprecedented quite large sum of money payable to Miss Francis and without any further premeditated delay in order to not incur further significant penalty. Further it's maintained that the evidence suggests clearly that as the State and the Commonwealth legal advisers have failed to recommend out of court settlement, indicates their subscription to unconscionable conduct believing they have no fear of embarrassments for the parliaments by the publicity of a prosecution because Ms Francis as just one insignificant woman who has been successfully ostracized from all her rights as a person so she'll never get the matter into a court in the first instance, she'll simply die in agony as a result of denial of medical aid for her criminal assaults whilst living in the public eye in a capitol city in Australia seeing everyone else around her get unchallenged access to life saving simplistic medical services.
Areas of law include the law of tort, Common law, human rights treaties, Civil law defamation: NSW and SA Defamation Act. Criminal defamation: NSW Crimes Act 1900, SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, 'Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence' contrary to Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 may also be applicable. Civil liability state law in negligence, Criminal negligence: Criminal Code Act 1995 negligence as fault element, NSW Crimes Act 1900, SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Witness victimization, stalking, assault, harassment, politically motivated violence, inciting communal violence, and torture all commonly a serious crime under both state and commonwealth legislations. Copyright infringement involving digital conversion is a serious Commonwealth crime. False statements under the Therapeutic Goods Act in relation to Active Implantable Medical Devices is a serious Commonwealth crime and in this instance is a breach of the Commonwealth Radiocommunications Act and the various Commonwealth and State eavesdropping Acts. False imprisonment and malicious prosecution to conceal any (this/these) crimes or medical procedures that occurred without legal excuse and without informed consent are also very serious State and Commonwealth crimes.
Where not any person has lifted a finger to protect this Australian from Australian officials as she attempts to go about her life in Australia – white Australians pre-abolition of the White Australia policy, in retaliation to the White Australia policy where Miss Francis has maintained the belief that she feels more comfortable around people of her own physical similarity - Anglo Saxon. This is not a racial discrimination it is a metabolic fact that none of us can evade. The example comes from a real event involving a black cat and a grey coloured cat. The mid aged black cat had not ever experienced an acquaintance with another black cat and after a period of settling in came quite friendly with the grey cat, until another black cat came into the picture then the first black cat demonstrated significant hatred for the grey cat and distinct platonic fondness for the introduced black cat. Despite being an interesting angle race is not the matter here.
In 1989 when the Allen & Unwin book was published Miss Francis had traveled through some 33 years of life. During that time she had not involved herself in anything that might even slightly appear radical. You can justly say her life was very average and basically boring like most people. The only thing Miss Francis had done in the previous 33 years was to report her suspicions that one of her three male children had been sexually interfered with by a male member of the order of Freemasons who also happened to be blood related to her family. If you peruse the courts files and news stories you will not find any story that tells of the conviction of a man for sexual assault against a male member of his family where that man is also a Freemason. In fact despite that Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke is a Freemason there has always been virtually nothing in the news about his connection. In face until I made that factual allegation public in recent years there was noting in the public eye about his connection. Likewise there is nothing about the Freemasonry membership of other Parliamentarians in Federal government or State - despite the enduring global claims of their adherence to barbaric occult practices. Take stock of the reality that if a prominent public official was secretly a member of any group that had the history of occult or organized crime association that has never even once been investigated beyond the group claims that they are innocent - then you would "more likely than not" want to know about it and would most likely want it lawfully investigated - by there never being an official and open investigation indicates, under our laws, a clear inference of an admission of guilt.
All Miss Francis had done was report such an event and that is what has provoked the unprecedented and barbaric retaliation against Miss Francis where medical practitioners have carved her up and left her for dead - just like Jack the Ripper. That my friend is clear and conclusive evidence of Terrorism or Genocide inflicted upon a person who has conclusive evidence of a male-child sex crime involving a male Freemason.
"Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris but in another tradition Hathor is regarded as his mother and sometimes as his wife," Wikipedia. Freemasonry today in 2011 is NOT ONLY based on the perpetuation of the crimes of incest and rape and murder, it's a secret part of Australian government law enforcement and the basis of many unlawful death penalties just like mine.
Written by "she who will always have the last laugh, the she Freemasons all fear" Janette Gail FRANCIS, born Cooma Australia 1956 in the midst of the enforcement of the government's White Australia Policy that was fully supported by mother England and Queen Elizabeth II, the present patron of Freemasonry.
I'm happy to screw the lot of you and fight within the law - but you arsewipes are by far too gutless for that.
|Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:55 PM|
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/img_400/_04R0094.jpg&t=1" width="402" height="133" />
If the government is serious about addressing the problems that end up erupting into public brawls then one answer it to provide a free physical activity that all of our youth can access equally and compete in just as equally.
The solution would also address the mental health issues now paging our community.
Violence is a natural NORMAL emotion just like happiness and sadness.
We NEED to EXPRESS violence to be mentally healthy.
The theme - Days of old
Young men and women, or not so young ones, are equipped with a full suit of padded Kevlar Armour and helmet, they go into battle as part of a team of knights, their sword is made of a rubber that bends or not anyway primarily it just whacks their opponent as opposed to carving them up hence the padded Armour.
Our young men and women (and others, dads and sons, neighbours, whatever) get to have fun, and if they choose, settle serious differences with violent thoughts and physical lunges, but with few injuries and no serious ones, but probably a few bruises if they don't fit their padding correctly.
I'd be happy to challenge Health Minister John Hill to a sword fight on these terms. Bet he's too chicken though.
Bet the Treasurer and Premier would be happy to suit up with the person at the other end of their black eye.
|Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM|
I've just finished an application for appeal to an Australian Court which means I've had little time to do house cleaning as I'm doing the court matters as a self represented prosecutor, without any legal background I might add. As I stooped over to pick up something I'd just dropped on the floor I noticed an old newspaper stuck under a chair leg. It was a Southern Times community newspaper dated 12 May 2010, I'd obviously had it open previously at page (3) three where there's a photo of 100 year old George Govett looking pretty neat for his age. However the interest that took my eye was the news story above George's head, it's heading is Young and Violent.
To encapsulate the story: SHORT VERSION
It's about government supporters blaming youth for government supporter errors.
(I hate the English language I wrote their own errors which makes an ambiguous meaning)
To encapsulate the story: LONGER VERSION
It's about the press and a councillor who was recently re-elected and a university lecturer all bitching about youth violence on the increase in the areas that Council and State Government have opened up for new residential development in recent years, without providing cost free or subsidised entertainment facilities for the young men and women that are reasonably assumed will occupy those areas of new residential development added recent years. Then blame the youth for being exactly what they are supposed to be, young, competitive, courageous, and energetic.
The ELECTRONIC VERSION
(for some reason I'm unaware of the prefix of "http://www." doesn't work with this address)
We all know the local press are in bed with the ALP so that's a waste of time to chastise journalist Sophie Perri.
Janet Bryan might like to ask her UniSA colleagues to study the development of the "emotion centres" of members in Parliament and the personnel chosen to head each of the State Departments. I think the rest of us call it the "intelligence level".
Councillor Wenham should stop being a State government political arselicker and put pressure on council and the state to provide the youth with FREE entertainment where they can vent the excesses of their young hormones. You should make your council decisions Ms Wenham based on the impact they might have on your own children should your power base suddenly erode. That's not a threat it's just what any parent would or should do if they are in a position of authority.
Incidentally, the Court matter; it's about people in power who are Old and Violent.
Yvonne, me thinks it's a bit better to be adopted out at 12 days that raped at 2 years, be worried about the frown's on the faces of you and your son. It was my participation in council that caused my three sons to be brainwashed by police who were ALP supporters in the 1990's now they hate me due to the incomprehensible dramas the brainwashers pumped into their head, now in their 30's they can't even tell me in any logical form why they hate me these young men who were close to me are now lost to me it's totally broken my heart. Don't trust anyone with your children, particularly POLICE from experience I've discovered police officers are mostly lying pedophile supporters. I suspect the vocation attracts sexual perverts who need to be in control.
|Posted on November 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM|
Guess who just got their motor vehicle registration renewal.
To: Department of Transport Energy and Infrastructure, CO2 Vehicle Registrations, Level 4, 60 Waymouth St, Adelaide SA 5000
Dear Director of CO2 Vehicle Registrations,
RE: Your Clayton's Tax & Cash Grab and CO2 Emissions
Perhaps you would be so kind as to locate someone who can precisely explain these matters, I would appreciate an intelligent response without delay:-
To put it bluntly, you are allowing YOUR chosen insurance company to rip-off registered owners.
Considering that you have made this a compulsory insurance the injustices are clearly unconstitutionally lacking in comparative equality.
Moreover that the Stamp Duty is charged to the end user by your insurance company, then paid directly to you from your insurance company, you are clearly attaining a monetary benefit from the higher CTP insurance premiums.
Which therefore establishes existence of your "financial incentive" to allow the lack of premium distinction between the types of passenger vehicles.
Which is in absolute conflict with global agreements to encourage a massive reduction in the present level of carbon emissions by considerable financial incentives.
Link to website that generated the CO2 calculations in the JPG pictures attached:-
|Posted on November 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM|
I ask you: - Do Politicians have a proven reputation for being honest or what?s10 clearly says "ANYOTHER MINISTER"
"a service in connection with a service, matter or thing"
literally means ANY bloody thing they can conjure up in a moment of pressure in political damage control modus operandi like this letter from AHPRA, below.
SEE Below: AHPRA investigators choose to ignore the
EXPERT radiology film moreover they declined to explain why they ignored the radiology diagnostic films paid for in full by Medicare Australia, including the MRI.
So I sent the following to the Medical Board
someone else might like to enlighten the Commonwealth Medical Board on why it's not a crash hot idea to ignore my communication of 26 November 2010.
The LAW links contain some other bits and pieces that may come in use some day.
SECT 41HA: THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989
SECT 9A: NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953
SECT 9C: NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953
|Posted on November 25, 2010 at 6:36 PM|
Frank Pangello Adelaide Today Tonight 25 Nov 2010
you're all selectively politically deaf
Below: Is extract of the "story" I sent channel 7's Today Tonight after I heard their bullshit broadcast on my TV on Thursday 25 November 2010 pertaining to the claim from a State politician who said the words "Independent Commission Against Corruption" about 15 times during the short interview - as if he was in programmed in ROBOT mode his back was to the camera all the time and as far as I could tell he never moved his hands, arms or body. The interviewer on the other hand attempted to encourage him to say the acronym ICAC as she did she clearly had a fleeting look of concern for his mental health on her face. That would certainly explain the 'starched' way Julia Gillard stands in interviews with her hands outstretched boobing up an down as her arms are bent at a 90 degree angle as if she's preaching the Gospel, repeating a phrase over and over during a conversation. We don't have politicians we have brainwashed human droids.
The question I have is exactly which "GROUP" from which "COUNTRY" is brainwashing Australian Politicians for public appearances - reminds me of an incident involving ex-President Clinton some years ago.
Tell us your story here:
If we really need an ICAC then show us the stories. If an ICAC is supposed to be as independent as the State Ombudsman and State Court, then tell us how an ICAC will resolve the problems the Ombudsman and the Courts can't when they are just as filthy with corruption as an ICAC would be in South Australia just as they are in New South Wales and everywhere else in this filthy corrupt country, including the prime idiot I was put through to on the phone at Channel 7 in Adelaide - Sarah Jane - who INSISTED that there's NO corruption in Adelaide just before she called my insane.
Please attach your picture or video here [FU2.jpg]
Add any other comments or useful information here:
I've contacted YOU many many many many many times since I came her in 2004 from NSW and the criminal assaults from the Australian police continue to happen totally unprovoked after I was arrested for complaining about this for the first time in 2001 - when I found it FIRST. Dikheads.
Below: the photo on the left is the proof I sent this "story" to Today Tonight, I had to reduce the picture size before I could send it, the red writing is the instruction from the website to reduce the size left from my last attempt, the green 'processing' bar on the bottom right of the picture indicates the progress of this message (with the smaller file) being sent to Channel 7. The photo on the right indicates that they got it. I actually sent it twice.
|Posted on November 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM|
|Posted on November 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM|
"Shoe-in" may have come from the double success relayed in the story of Cinderella, generally refers to "a winner" both Prince Charming and Cinderella got a free ticket out of their boring lives by their dramatic union.
There was an old woman who lived in a shoe.
She had so many children she didn't know what to do.
She gave them some broth without any bread.
Then whipped them all soundly and put them to bed.
The 'Old Woman who Lived in a Shoe' referred to the British Empire trying to control its colonies. We think of the shape of Italy as a boot or shoe, but in this rhyme it’s the British Isles. The old woman was Parliament, who couldn't quite look after her many colonial children in the far-flung British Empire. Midi: There was an Old Woman who Lived in a Shoe
Like Australia and me, so in order to "control" me I'm treated like a total fool within the court system, shown nothing but illegal processes and total lack of procedural fairness in EVERY Civil Court matter I've participated in, to entice me to form the false belief that "this shit" is what a real court is like.
DCCIV-09-1697, FRANCIS v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA  DCSA ???? is just the tip of the iceberg, "mate".
And I'm not the only one they do it "intermittently" to either where, as it were
the old woman is still Parliament, Australia's in this instance, the 'twist' is that
these days after extensive "progress" and "modernization"
Parliament is now solely run by single interest criminally corrupt political party's.
Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie
|Posted on November 24, 2010 at 10:45 PM|
In the First Australian Appeal of DCCIV-09-1697 DCSA 
|Posted on November 24, 2010 at 7:43 PM|
In my prosecution of South Australian State for their negligent failure of their police to charge a criminal, [which in the natural course of events requires investigation and the application of all applicable Australian law including the Police Act and the South Australian criminal law] I was "informed" by every judicial officer in the matter and by the Crown Solicitor's representative, that Police didn't have to investigate if they didn't want to or that my "claim" had no basis in law. My Adelaide, Australia, District Court Appeal was tossed out on 10 November 2010, on the eve of REMEMBRANCE DAY. During that final hearing I was even wearing an Australian Remembrance Day Poppy on the lapel of my coat, which happened to catch the eye of Judge Griffin.
So as an non-legal self-representing prosecutor I believed the lying scumbags knowing they had a legal responsibility to be honest as officers of the court.
I believed them until I discovered this [below] after the matter was refused on 10 Nov 2010 and after over 13 months of court hearings.
I've highlighted the index at the good part:-
[You can find the copy at www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/pr1999184/ ]
under the Police Act 1998
1 Short title
Part 2—Command and structure of S.A. Police
5 Relative seniority
6 Responsibility when members are on duty together
7 Responsibility of members on duty with other employees in the department
Part 3—Initial appointments
8 Selection processes for initial appointment
9 Appointment to certain ranks for specified term under section 23
10 Duties of all members of S.A. Police
Part 5—Code of Conduct
11 Code of conduct
12 Honesty and integrity
13 Conduct prejudicial to S.A. Police
14 Performance of orders and duties
16 Proper exercise of authority
17 Conduct towards public, employees in the department
18 Conflict of interest
19 Improperly obtaining benefit or advantage
20 Confidentiality of information
21 Responsibility for property
22 Improper complaint
23 Foreign law
24 Interpretation of Code
25 Charge for breach of Code
26 Procedure where breach admitted
27 Procedure where breach not admitted
28 Maximum reduction in remuneration, maximum fines
29 Transfer to position of higher rank
30 Transfer to position of lower rank arising from restructuring
Part 8—Appointment to promotional positions in S.A. Police
31 Application of Part
32 Notice of requirements or qualifications for appointment
33 Selection processes
34 Period of appointment
Part 9—Grievance process and review
35 Application for review of informal inquiry
36 Unsatisfactory performance review panel
37 Grievance process for section 47 transfer
38 Grievance process for selection decision
39 Applications to Police Review Tribunal: time and procedures
Part 10—History of employees
40 Duty to keep history
41 Removal of entry relating to punishment or penalty
42 Access of employee to history
43 Record of commendation of employee
44 Certificate of service
Part 11—Leave of absence
46 Recreation and sick leave for officers
47 Special sick leave for war service disabilities
48 Compassionate leave
49 Other special leave
50 Leave for service in armed forces
51 Leave bank
Part 12—Property in custody of S.A. Police
52 Application of Part
54 Custody of property
56 Investigation of ownership
57 Disposal of property
58 Perishable, unsafe, unlawful etc property
59 Property subject to court order
60 Found property
61 Unclaimed property
62 Effect, proceeds of sale
63 Proceeds, unclaimed money to be paid into Consolidated Account
64 Return of unclaimed property, proceeds of sale
65 Commissioner may prepare instruments
67 Search of prisoners
68 Property taken from prisoners
69 Illness or injury of prisoners
70 Legal, medical and other assistance for prisoners
70A Liability for payment of medical expenses
71 Interviews with prisoners
72 Form of oath or affirmation
73 Annual report
74 Remuneration on suspension, revocation of suspension
75 Transport costs on transfer
76 Liability for loss of equipment
77 Offence for former employees in the department to use or disclose information
Schedule 1—Form of oath or affirmation
Schedule 3—Revocation and transitional provisions
2 Leave rights
3 Property currently in custody of S.A. Police
4 Administrative acts
These regulations may be cited as the Police Regulations 1999.
In these regulations—
approved means approved by the Commissioner by general or special order under section 11 of the Act;
the Act means the Police Act 1998;
employee means a member of S.A. Police or police cadet;
employee in the department means—
(a) a member of S.A. Police; or
(b) a police cadet, police medical officer or special constable; or
(c) a person employed in or performing duties or functions in the department of the public service of which the Commissioner is Chief Executive, or in relation to which the Commissioner has the powers and functions of Chief Executive, under the Public Sector Act 2009;
the previous regulations means—
(a) the Police Regulations 1999 (see Gazette 30.6.1999 p3312) (disallowed); or
(b) the regulations revoked by these regulations; or
(c) any regulations made and revoked under the Police Act 1952;
service does not include leave without pay unless otherwise ordered by the Commissioner.
Part 2—Command and structure of S.A. Police
The ranks of officers and other members of S.A. Police in order of seniority (starting with the highest rank) are as follows:
(b) Deputy Commissioner;
(c) Assistant Commissioner;
(e) Chief Superintendent;
(g) Chief Inspector;
(i) Senior Sergeant;
(ja) Senior Constable First Class;
(k) Senior Constable;
Except as otherwise determined by the Commissioner under section 40 of the Act or as otherwise provided in these regulations, the relative seniority of members of S.A. Police will be determined as follows:
(a) as between two members holding different ranks, the senior member is the member who holds the higher rank;
(b) as between two members holding the same rank, the senior member is the member who has been holding the rank continuously for the longer period of time;
(c) as between two members holding the same rank who have held the rank for the same period of time, the senior member is the member who, by general or special order of the Commissioner, is the senior member.
6—Responsibility when members are on duty together
(1) If two or more members of S.A. Police are engaged on duty together—
(a) the senior member is responsible for the performance of the duty; and
(b) the junior member, regardless of the part of S.A. Police in which the member is serving, must comply with the orders given by the senior member.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), where a community constable is engaged on duty with a member of S.A. Police who is not a community constable, that other member is the senior and the community constable is the junior.
(3) Despite subregulation (1)—
(a) if the Commissioner by general or special order, or any officer by order, directs that a specified member of S.A. Police is responsible for the performance of a particular duty, the other members of S.A. Police engaged on the duty, whether senior to the specified member or not, must comply with orders given by the member for the performance of the duty; and
(b) if a member of S.A. Police is, in accordance with these regulations, transferred to a position of a lower rank without loss of rank or seniority, the member must comply with the orders of such other members, whether junior to the member or not, as the Commissioner may direct for the performance of the duties of the position.
(4) A direction by an officer under subregulation (3)(a) may only be given in relation to, and is only binding on, a member of S.A. Police who is under the officer's direction and superintendence.
7—Responsibility of members on duty with other employees in the department
If the Commissioner by general or special order directs that a specified employee in the department who is not a member of S.A. Police is responsible for the performance of a particular duty, all members of S.A. Police engaged on that duty must (subject to any general or special order of the Commissioner) comply with the orders given by that person for the performance of that duty.
Part 3—Initial appointments
8—Selection processes for initial appointment
(1) An application for initial appointment as an employee or police medical officer must be made in a manner approved by the Commissioner.
(2) Applications for initial appointment as an employee or police medical officer will be assessed, and selections for appointment made, in such manner as may be approved by the Commissioner.
(3) The Commissioner may appoint a selection panel to advise the Commissioner on the suitability, or relative suitability, of applicants.
(4) An applicant must, if required, attend for an interview before such a selection panel.
(5) This regulation does not apply to an appointment to a position in S.A. Police of or above the rank of senior constable.
9—Appointment to certain ranks for specified term under section 23
Pursuant to section 23(2)(b) of the Act, a person who is not a member of S.A. Police may be appointed under section 23 to a position in S.A. Police of or above the rank of senior constable for a term specified under that section if applications for the position have been called for and an advisory committee formed to consider those applications has determined that there are no suitable applicants.
10—Duties of all members of S.A. Police
Every member of S.A. Police must use all lawful means in his or her power—
(a) to uphold the law, preserve the peace, prevent crime and carry out the other functions of S.A. Police; and
(b) to ensure that all employees under his or her command perform their duties efficiently and in a proper manner.
Part 5—Code of Conduct
11—Code of conduct
(1) For the purposes of section 37 of the Act, the provisions of this Part constitute a Code of Conduct for the maintenance of professional standards by employees.
(2) An employee who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this Part (or attempts, aids, abets, counsels or procures such a contravention or failure) is guilty of a breach of the Code.
12—Honesty and integrity
An employee must at all times act with honesty and integrity, whether in the course of his or her employment or otherwise.
13—Conduct prejudicial to S.A. Police
An employee must not, in the course of his or her employment or otherwise, behave in a manner that—
(a) reflects or is likely to reflect adversely on S.A. Police; or
(b) is prejudicial to good order and discipline in S.A. Police.
14—Performance of orders and duties
An employee must not, without good and sufficient cause, disobey a lawful order or fail to carry out a lawful order or a duty promptly and diligently.
An employee must not be negligent in carrying out a lawful order or a duty.
16—Proper exercise of authority
An employee must—
(a) use only such force as is reasonably necessary in the execution of his or her duties; and
(b) exercise his or her powers of arrest and search, and any other power or authority conferred on the employee by virtue of his or her employment, reasonably and for a proper purpose.
17—Conduct towards public, employees in the department
An employee, in dealing with members of the public in the course of his or her employment, or in dealing at any time with employees in the department—
(a) must not unlawfully discriminate against any person; and
(b) must not behave in an oppressive, offensive, abusive or insulting manner; and
(c) must be impartial and respectful.
18—Conflict of interest
(a) must not knowingly place himself or herself in a position that creates or is likely to create a conflict of interest with his or her position as an employee; and
(b) must immediately report any such conflict (or likelihood of conflict) that arises to an officer senior to the employee.
19—Improperly obtaining benefit or advantage
An employee must not improperly obtain or seek to obtain a benefit or advantage for himself or herself or another person from his or her position as an employee.
20—Confidentiality of information
An employee must treat information obtained by S.A. Police (or by the employee by virtue of his or her employment) as confidential and must not—
(a) seek to obtain access to such information except in the proper execution of his or her duties; or
(b) improperly use or disclose such information.
21—Responsibility for property
An employee must not lose, damage, waste or misuse S.A. Police property or property in the custody of S.A. Police and must do everything within his or her authority to prevent, and report in accordance with general or special orders, the loss, damage, waste or misuse of such property.
An employee must not make a false or frivolous complaint against an employee in the department.
An employee must not be found guilty of an offence under foreign law in respect of conduct that would have constituted an offence if it had occurred in this State.
24—Interpretation of Code
In this Code—
behave includes any form of behaviour, whether by word, conduct or omission;
duty, in relation to an employee, means a duty of the employee under the Act, these regulations or any other Act or law;
order, in relation to an employee, means—
(a) a general or special order made or given by the Commissioner; or
(b) an order given by a person with authority under the Act or these regulations to give such an order to the employee.
25—Charge for breach of Code
(1) A charge against an employee for a breach of the Code must be—
(a) reduced to writing and signed by the Commissioner;
(b) forwarded to the registrar of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal.
(2) The registrar of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal must cause a copy of the charge to be served on the alleged offender together with a notice in the form prescribed in Schedule 2.
26—Procedure where breach admitted
(1) If the employee charged admits the charge in writing and forwards the admission so as to reach the registrar of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal within 21 days after service of the written charge, the registrar must forward the admission, any written statement or request made by the employee and all other relevant papers to the Commissioner.
(2) On receipt of the admission, the Commissioner must consider any submissions in mitigation made by the employee—
(a) by written statement attached to the admission;
(b) if the employee indicated in the admission a desire to appear before the Commissioner, by personal representation to the Commissioner,
before making a decision as to any action to be taken to impose a punishment on the employee.
27—Procedure where breach not admitted
If the employee charged denies the charge or does not admit it in accordance with these regulations within 21 days after service of the written charge, the Police Disciplinary Tribunal must fix a time and place for hearing the charge.
28—Maximum reduction in remuneration, maximum fines
(1) For the purposes of section 40(1)(f) and (i) of the Act—
(a) if the remuneration of an employee is to be reduced for an offence or breach of the Code, the total amount forfeited by the employee must not exceed the sum of $1 250;
(b) if a fine is to be imposed for an offence or breach of the Code, the fine must not exceed the sum of $1 250.
(2) The Commissioner may, on imposing a fine for an offence or breach of the Code—
(a) grant time for the payment of the fine or permit it to be paid in instalments;
(b) deduct the fine from the employee's pay or from any money due to the employee.
29—Transfer to position of higher rank
(1) Subject to this regulation, the Commissioner may, under section 47 of the Act, transfer a member of S.A. Police to a position of a higher rank—
(a) until a person on leave from or otherwise temporarily unable to perform the duties of the position returns to the position; or
(b) if the position has been permanently vacated, until the position is filled by selection processes.
(1a) A transfer as authorised under subregulation (1)—
(a) may be made on such conditions as are approved by the Commissioner; and
(b) must not be for a period exceeding two years.
(2) If a member has been transferred to a position of a higher rank as authorised under this regulation, the Commissioner may, under section 47 of the Act, transfer the member to a position of a lower rank in order to return the member to a position of a rank the same as that of his or her original position.
30—Transfer to position of lower rank arising from restructuring
(1) Subject to this regulation, the Commissioner may, under section 47 of the Act, transfer a member of S.A. Police to a position of lower rank if—
(a) the transfer is in the opinion of the Commissioner necessary for the purposes of the restructuring of a part of S.A. Police; and
(b) the transfer is made on condition that the member retains his or her existing rank and seniority while occupying the position of a lower rank.
(2) A member transferred as authorised under subregulation (1) may be further transferred to positions of a rank lower than that of his or her original position.
(3) The period or aggregate of the periods for which a transfer or transfers authorised under subregulation (1) or (2) may continue must not exceed two years or such longer period as the Minister may approve in a particular case.
(4) If a member has been transferred to a position of a lower rank as authorised under this regulation, the Commissioner may, under section 47 of the Act, transfer the member to a position of a higher rank in order to return the member to a position of a rank the same as that of his or her original position.
(5) On transferring a member to a position of a lower rank as authorised under this regulation, the Commissioner must give orders as to the performance by the member of the duties of the position and the members whose orders will be binding on the member while in the position.
Part 8—Appointment to promotional positions in S.A. Police
31—Application of Part
Nothing in this Part applies in relation to a transfer under the Act or these regulations from one position in S.A. Police to another.
32—Notice of requirements or qualifications for appointment
Where the Commissioner by general or special order makes provision concerning the requirements or qualifications for appointment to a position of or above the rank of senior constable, he or she must cause notice of the order to be given in the Police Gazette as soon as practicable after it is made.
(1) This regulation applies to an appointment to a position in S.A. Police of or above the rank of senior constable and of or below the rank of Assistant Commissioner.
(2) The Commissioner must cause the position to be advertised—
(a) by notice in the Police Gazette calling for applicants (except in the case of an appointment under section 23 of the Act); and
(b) in such other manner as may be approved by the Commissioner.
(3) The Commissioner may appoint an advisory committee of at least three persons, one of whom may be the Commissioner, to assist in determining the suitability of applicants to fill the position.
(4) If the Commissioner is a member of the committee, the Commissioner will determine, with the advice and assistance of the other members of the committee, which applicant is the most suitable on merit (or, if appropriate, that there is no suitable applicant).
(5) If the Commissioner is not a member of the committee, the committee must determine which applicant is, in the opinion of the committee, the most suitable on merit (or that there is no suitable applicant) and advise the Commissioner in writing accordingly.
(6) An applicant may be required to take part in or submit to an interview, test, medical or psychological assessment, training course or other assessment procedure.
(7) A member of S.A. Police must, at the request of an advisory committee, appear before or produce to the committee any record, document or other information to which the member has access and that the committee needs in connection with its determination.
34—Period of appointment
(1) The Commissioner may, in seeking applicants for a position of or above the rank of senior constable and of or below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, stipulate that an appointment to the position is to be for a specified period or a specified minimum period.
(2) A specified period may be varied at the discretion of the Commissioner.
(3) A specified minimum period may be reduced at the discretion of the Commissioner.
(4) If a minimum period of appointment is specified in respect of a position, a person appointed to the position is not, except at the discretion of the Commissioner, eligible for appointment to another position in S.A. Police of the same or a lower rank until the minimum period has expired.
Part 9—Grievance process and review
35—Application for review of informal inquiry
(1) If an employee is found on informal inquiry to have committed a breach of the Code, an application by the employee for review under section 43 of the Act must be made to the first officer in the same line of command as the employee, determined in ascending order from the next rank above the employee's rank—
(a) who was not involved in the informal inquiry or investigations leading up to the informal inquiry; and
(b) who is on duty during the three weekdays following the day on which the application is delivered to the Commissioner's office in accordance with subregulation (2).
(2) An application for review under section 43 of the Act—
(a) must be addressed to the "Informal Inquiry Review Officer" and delivered to the Commissioner's office for forwarding to the member determined under subregulation (1); and
(b) must be in writing in a form approved by the Commissioner; and
(c) must identify the informal inquiry in respect of which the review is sought; and
(d) must state the grounds on which the review is sought; and
(e) must be delivered to the Commissioner's office within seven days after the day on which the particulars of the finding or determination on the inquiry are furnished to the employee.
(3) In this regulation—
weekday means a day other than a Saturday or a Sunday or other public holiday.
36—Unsatisfactory performance review panel
If it is proposed that action be taken under section 46 of the Act against a member of S.A. Police on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, the panel of persons required under subsection (5)(c) of that section—
(a) will consist of three persons appointed by the Commissioner, at least one of whom must be a member of S.A. Police currently employed in a human resource management or development area of S.A. Police; and
(b) must be chaired by a person specified by the Commissioner; and
(c) must make its decision by majority vote; and
(d) must notify its decision to the Commissioner in writing as soon as practicable after the panel is appointed by the Commissioner; and
(e) subject to this regulation, may determine its own procedures.
37—Grievance process for section 47 transfer
(1) A member of S.A. Police who is transferred to another position under section 47 of the Act and is aggrieved by the transfer may apply to the Commissioner to have his or her grievance dealt with.
(2) An application under this regulation—
(a) must be in writing in a form approved by the Commissioner; and
(b) must identify the transfer giving rise to the grievance; and
(c) must set out the grounds of the grievance; and
(d) must be delivered to the Commissioner's office within 14 days after the member is notified in writing of his or her transfer under section 47.
(3) The Commissioner must give written notice to the applicant of the Commissioner's decision on the grievance application.
38—Grievance process for selection decision
(1) A member of S.A. Police who is aggrieved by a selection decision notified in the Police Gazette under section 55 of the Act may apply to the Commissioner to have his or her grievance dealt with.
(2) An application under this regulation—
(a) must be in writing in a form approved by the Commissioner; and
(b) must identify the decision giving rise to the grievance; and
(c) must set out the grounds of the grievance; and
(d) must be delivered to the Commissioner's office within 14 days after the selection decision is notified in the Police Gazette.
(3) On an application under this regulation, the Commissioner may—
(a) confirm the selection decision;
(b) quash the selection decision;
(c) order that the selection processes be recommenced from the beginning or some later stage specified by the Commissioner.
(4) The Commissioner must give written notice to the applicant of the Commissioner's decision on the grievance application within 28 days after receipt of the application (or within such longer period as may be agreed between the applicant and the Commissioner).
39—Applications to Police Review Tribunal: time and procedures
(1) An application to the Police Review Tribunal under section 48 of the Act by a member (or former member) of S.A. Police for a review of a decision to terminate the member's appointment must be made within 28 days after the member or former member receives written notice of the relevant decision.
(2) An application to the Tribunal under section 52 of the Act by a member of S.A. Police for a review of a decision to transfer the member to another position must be made within 14 days after the member receives written notice of the decision.
(3) An application to the Tribunal under section 55 of the Act by a member of S.A. Police for a review of a selection decision must be made within seven days after the member receives written notice of the decision made on his or her grievance application in respect of the selection decision.
(4) An application to the Tribunal for a review—
(a) must be—
(i) in a form approved by the Secretary to the Tribunal; and
(ii) typewritten or printed; and
(iii) in triplicate; and
(b) must identify the decision to be reviewed; and
(c) must set out the grounds for review; and
(d) must specify the relief sought on review; and
(e) must state whether or not the applicant requires any person to be summoned to appear before the Tribunal, or to produce any document, object or material; and
(f) in the case of an application for review of a selection decision under section 55 of the Act, must be accompanied by a copy of the decision made on the member's grievance application under that section.
(5) An applicant to the Tribunal, or a member of S.A. Police summoned to appear before the Tribunal, must be granted the necessary leave of absence to allow him or her to appear before the Tribunal.
(6) The Tribunal must hear and determine an application for review of a selection decision under section 55 of the Act within 28 days after receipt by the Tribunal of the application.
Part 10—History of employees
40—Duty to keep history
(1) The Commissioner must cause a history to be kept of the conduct and service of every employee.
(2) The history of each employee must include the following particulars:
(a) full name, identification number, personal description, marital status and next of kin;
(b) educational, trade or professional qualifications gained, and special training completed, before or after joining S.A. Police;
(c) appointments, promotions and transfers;
(d) war service, military distinctions and other distinctions;
(e) entries, as directed by the Commissioner in each case, of meritorious conduct and other matters favourable to the employee;
(f) punishments imposed by the Commissioner (unless the Commissioner directs the punishment is not to be recorded);
(g) such particulars of any penalty imposed on the employee in a court of law as the Commissioner directs;
(h) leave granted or taken;
(i) any other particulars required by or under the Act or these regulations or directed from time to time by the Commissioner.
(3) The history of each employee must be maintained in the manner and place directed by the Commissioner.
41—Removal of entry relating to punishment or penalty
(a) there is an entry recording a punishment or penalty in the history of an employee; and
(b) not less than five years have elapsed since the entry was made; and
(c) no further entry recording a punishment or penalty has since been made,
the employee may apply to the Commissioner in writing to have the entry, and any previous entry recording a punishment or penalty, removed from the employee's history.
(2) On receipt of such an application the Commissioner—
(a) may, if he or she thinks fit, order that the entry or any previous such entry be removed; and
(b) must in any event advise the employee of the Commissioner's response to the application.
42—Access of employee to history
(a) must be given access to his or her history in accordance with procedures approved by the Commissioner; and
(b) must, on application, be supplied with a copy of the history.
43—Record of commendation of employee
(1) If an employee displays unusual moral or physical courage or shows exceptional tact, skill or ability, the officer in charge of the employee may, if it is considered that the conduct of the employee justifies a commendation being recorded, cause a report giving full particulars to be furnished to the Commissioner.
(2) The Commissioner must, if satisfied (on the basis of that report or such further inquiry as the Commissioner may require) that the conduct of the employee deserves commendation, cause a record to be made in the employee's history.
44—Certificate of service
(1) On ceasing to be employed under the Act an employee will, on application to the Commissioner, be granted a certificate of service showing the employee's rank (or position), period of service and such other information as may be approved by the Commissioner.
(2) A certificate showing the rank (or position) and period of service of a deceased employee will be supplied to the employee's next of kin on request.
(3) The Commissioner may, on application, issue a duplicate certificate of service if satisfied of the loss or destruction of the original certificate.
Part 11—Leave of absence
A reference in this Part to an employee, an officer or a member of S.A. Police does not include—
(a) the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner; or
(b) an Assistant Commissioner appointed after the commencement of the Police (Contract Appointments) Amendment Act 1996 (19 December 1996); or
(c) a person appointed under section 23 of the Act; or
(d) a community constable.
46—Recreation and sick leave for officers
An officer is entitled to the rest days and recreation and sick leave that other members of S.A. Police are entitled to under these regulations or the Police Officers' Award.
47—Special sick leave for war service disabilities
(1) The Commissioner may grant a member of S.A. Police who provides evidence that he or she is absent from duty because of a disability accepted by the Commonwealth Repatriation Commission as due to war service special sick leave with pay (not debited against sick leave credits) for a period not exceeding the special sick leave standing to the credit of that member under this regulation.
(2) The special sick leave standing to the credit of a member of S.A. Police absent due to a disability arising from war service is as follows:
(a) a non-accumulative credit of 45 working days credited on 1 July 1955 or on appointment as a member of S.A. Police (whichever is the later); plus
(b) a cumulative credit of 15 working days credited on 1 July 1964, or on appointment as a member of S.A. Police (whichever is the later) and on the anniversary of that date in each succeeding year to a maximum accumulation of 45 working days at any one time under this paragraph,
less the number of working days of leave that have been taken by the officer under this regulation or a corresponding provision of the previous regulations, debited in accordance with subregulation (3).
(3) The special sick leave standing to the credit of a member of S.A. Police under subregulation (2)(b)—
(a) may only be taken after the special sick leave standing to the member's credit under subregulation (2)(a) has been exhausted; and
(b) re-accumulates in accordance with subregulation (2)(b) if taken, but not so as to exceed the specified maximum accumulation.
(4) Special sick leave granted under this regulation is in addition to any other leave to which a member of S.A. Police may be entitled.
(1) The Commissioner may grant leave to an employee on the death within Australia of a person closely related to the employee.
(2) Leave granted under subregulation (1)—
(a) may only be granted for a period between notification of the death by the employee and the end of the day of the funeral of the person who has died; and
(b) must be without reduction in pay where the leave granted does not exceed the number of hours ordinarily worked by the employee in three working days.
(3) An employee must, for the purposes of this regulation, provide proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the death of the related person.
(4) For the purposes of this regulation—
person closely related to the employee means a person determined by the Commissioner to be closely related (whether by blood, marriage or otherwise) to the employee.
49—Other special leave
(1) The Commissioner may grant special leave to an employee if in the opinion of the Commissioner the grant of the leave is justified by special circumstances.
(2) Special leave under this regulation may be granted—
(a) on full pay, reduced pay or without pay; and
(b) on such other conditions,
as the Commissioner thinks fit.
(3) The Commissioner may approve a maximum period for which special leave on full pay may be granted in any financial year and, if such a maximum has been approved, no special leave on full pay may be granted to an employee in a financial year in excess of that maximum.
(4) Despite subregulation (3), the Commissioner may—
(a) grant special leave on reduced pay for a proportionately longer period than that approved under subregulation (3); or
(b) grant special leave on full or reduced pay to an employee for a longer period than that approved under subregulation (3) to enable the employee to undertake a training course or an attachment to another organisation.
(5) Where special leave is granted without pay, the Commissioner may order that the whole or any part of the leave be counted as service.
50—Leave for service in armed forces
(1) The Commissioner may grant leave to an employee who serves in the armed forces of the Commonwealth to enable the employee to undertake the training or duties required by that service.
(2) Leave will be granted for the periods and on the terms and conditions as to pay or otherwise that are approved by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner may make and carry out an arrangement with employees under which employees forego part of their annual recreation leave in return for the grant of additional sick leave.
Part 12—Property in custody of S.A. Police
52—Application of Part
This Part applies subject to any other Act or regulation.
In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears—
found property means any personal property that has been lost and whose owner is unknown at the time at which it is found;
legal proceedings includes a coronial inquiry;
money includes a negotiable instrument;
owner, in relation to property, means the person who is entitled to possession of the property;
prescribed account means an ADI (authorised deposit-taking institution) account maintained for the purpose of holding money that is in the custody of S.A. Police or the proceeds of the sale of other property that is in the custody of S.A. Police;
(a) found property; and
(b) the personal effects of deceased persons; and
(c) property that is seized or otherwise taken into the custody of a member of S.A. Police for investigatory or evidentiary purposes;
unclaimed property means property that has been in the custody of S.A. Police for the period of at least two months and in relation to which—
(a) there is no person who appears, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to be the owner of the property; or
(b) there is such a person but that person has not been located after reasonable inquiry; or
(c) there is such a person but that person has not exercised his or her right to recover the property,
but does not include found property unless, in addition—
(d) the finder has not exercised his or her right to claim the property within 42 days from the time at which he or she delivered the property to S.A. Police; or
(e) the finder has relinquished his or her claim to the property.
54—Custody of property
(1) The Commissioner must ensure the safety and security of property in the custody of S.A. Police.
(2) If a member of S.A. Police receives, seizes or otherwise takes custody of property, the member (or where two or more members are performing duty together, the senior member) must cause—
(a) a record of the property to be made in the manner approved by the Commissioner; and
(b) subject to this Part, the property to be kept in the manner and place approved by the Commissioner; and
(c) a receipt to be issued, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in the manner approved by the Commissioner, to the person from whom the property was received, seized or otherwise obtained.
(3) A member of S.A. Police must not use property that is in the custody of S.A. Police for purposes other than—
(a) those for which it was received, seized or otherwise taken; or
(b) purposes authorised under these regulations.
(1) Money that is in the custody of S.A. Police must, unless it is required in specie for evidentiary purposes in legal proceedings or to assist in the identification of its owner, be paid into a prescribed account in accordance with general or special orders.
(2) If the money is not in Australian currency, it must be converted to Australian currency for retention in the account.
(3) On payment of money into a prescribed account—
(a) the amount in Australian currency paid into the account; and
(b) except where found money is later returned to the finder or a court otherwise orders, any interest earned on the amount,
is to be taken to constitute the relevant money for the purposes of the disposal of property in accordance with these regulations.
56—Investigation of ownership
The Commissioner must cause all reasonable efforts to be made to determine and locate the owner of property that is in the custody of S.A. Police.
57—Disposal of property
(1) Subject to any order of a court, property that is in the custody of S.A. Police for investigatory or evidentiary purposes must not be released or disposed of by S.A. Police except—
(a) for scientific analysis, use as an exhibit or other use in connection with legal proceedings or official investigations; or
(b) in accordance with subregulation (2), when the property is no longer required for use in connection with any legal proceedings or official investigations and one month has elapsed since the end of any relevant legal proceedings.
(2) Subject to subregulation (1) property that is in the custody of S.A. Police must be disposed of as follows:
(a) if a court makes an order for the disposal of the property, the property must be disposed of in accordance with that order;
(b) if proceedings to determine the ownership of the property have commenced, the property must be retained by S.A. Police until those proceedings have been completed or discontinued;
(c) subject to paragraphs (a) and (b)—
(i) if there is a person who appears, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to be the owner, the property must be returned to that person unless he or she—
(A) cannot be located after reasonable inquiry; or
(B) does not exercise his or her right to recover the property;
(ii) if there is no person who appears to be the owner (or if subparagraph (i)(A) or (B) applies) and the property is found property claimed by the finder within the period required by these regulations and retained by S.A. Police for the period required by these regulations, the property must be returned to the finder in accordance with these regulations;
(iii) if the property is unclaimed property, it must be disposed of as unclaimed property in accordance with these regulations.
58—Perishable, unsafe, unlawful etc property
Despite these regulations—
(a) if property in the custody of S.A. Police is of such a nature that no person is lawfully entitled to it, the Commissioner must, if the property is not required by S.A. Police for use in connection with any legal proceedings or official investigations or for training or educational purposes, cause the property to be destroyed; and
(b) subject to paragraph (a), if it appears to the Commissioner that property in the custody of S.A. Police whose owner is not known, cannot be located or does not exercise his or her right to recover the property—
(i) is perishable or may rapidly depreciate in value; or
(ii) is of such a nature or in such condition that it would be dangerous, not reasonably practicable or unduly costly for S.A. Police to retain the property,
the Commissioner may cause the property to be sold, destroyed, returned to the finder (if there is a finder and he or she claims the property) or otherwise disposed of at such time and in such manner as the Commissioner thinks fit.
59—Property subject to court order
If property is in the custody of S.A. Police under an order of a court that requires the property to be retained until further notice, the property may be disposed of in accordance with these regulations as unclaimed property if no person becomes entitled to the property by order of a court in proceedings commenced within three years after the making of the earlier order.
(1) Found property in the custody of S.A. Police—
(a) may be claimed by the finder no later than 42 days from the day on which he or she delivered the property to S.A. Police; and
(b) must not be returned to the finder until it has been in the custody of S.A. Police for a period of at least two months.
(2) If found property is returned to the finder, the finder—
(a) does not obtain title to the property as against the owner or the person who lost the property until the end of five years from the day on which the property was returned to the finder by S.A. Police; and
(b) will be taken to have agreed to—
(i) return the property (or, if the finder no longer has the property, pay an amount equal to its value at that time) to a person who claims the property, and proves that claim to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, within five years after the day on which it was returned to the finder by S.A. Police; and
(ii) indemnify the Commissioner and any employee in the department in respect of any order or claim made or cost, loss, damage or expense incurred by any of them as a result of the return of the property to the finder; and
(c) is not entitled to interest on found money.
(3) Found property must not be returned to the finder unless he or she is first given notice in writing, in a form approved by the Commissioner, as to the operation of this regulation in relation to the finder's title to the property.
(4) An agreement under subregulation (2) is not void for want of consideration or for failure to comply with subregulation (3).
(5) An employee in the department who comes into possession of property in the course of his or her duties does not have the rights of a finder in relation to that property.
(1) The Commissioner may cause the whole or any part of unclaimed property, other than unclaimed money, that is in the custody of S.A. Police to be retained for use by S.A. Police, or sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of at such time and in such manner as the Commissioner thinks fit.
(2) Unclaimed money in the custody of S.A. Police is to be dealt with in accordance with regulation 55.
62—Effect, proceeds of sale
(1) A person who buys property sold by or on the authority of the Commissioner under this Part obtains good title to that property.
(2) The proceeds of a sale of property under this Part must be applied as follows:
(a) firstly, in payment of the expenses occasioned by the sale;
(b) secondly, in payment of storage or other expenses incurred by S.A. Police in relation to the property;
(c) thirdly, by payment of the balance into a prescribed account in accordance with general or special orders.
63—Proceeds, unclaimed money to be paid into Consolidated Account
(1) Proceeds of sale and unclaimed money held in a prescribed account under this Part must be retained in the account for a period of six months, after which the principal and any interest must be paid into the Consolidated Account.
(2) If unclaimed money held in a prescribed account was not unclaimed money at the time it was paid into the account but subsequently became unclaimed, the six month period referred to in subregulation (1) commences at the time at which the money became unclaimed.
64—Return of unclaimed property, proceeds of sale
The Commissioner may, at his or her discretion—
(a) if a person who appears, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to be the owner of property claims the property after it has become unclaimed property but while it remains in the custody of S.A. Police, authorise the property to be returned to the person;
(b) if a person who appears, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to have been the owner of property before it was sold under this Part claims the balance of the proceeds of the sale while the money continues to be held in a prescribed account under this Part, authorise the payment of the balance (and any interest on the balance) to the person.
65—Commissioner may prepare instruments
The Commissioner may prepare and execute all instruments necessary for carrying into effect the sale, destruction or other disposal of property under this Part.
In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears—
Metropolitan Adelaide has the same meaning as in the Development Act 1993;
officer in charge, in relation to a police station, means the member of S.A. Police who is for the time being in charge of the police station;
police station means offices and adjacent premises and land occupied for S.A. Police purposes;
prisoner means a person accepted into custody at a police station.
67—Search of prisoners
(1) Immediately after a prisoner is accepted into custody at a police station on a charge of committing an offence, the officer in charge of the station must cause the prisoner to be searched in accordance with these regulations and general or special orders.
(2) A search of a prisoner must, wherever practicable, be made by a person of the same sex as the prisoner.
(3) The person searching a prisoner must remove from the prisoner everything that might—
(a) assist the prisoner to escape; or
(b) be used to cause injury or harm to the prisoner or any other person; or
(c) be used to damage property.
(4) If a prisoner objects to the retention by S.A. Police of an article taken from the prisoner and the officer in charge of the station considers that there is no valid reason for its retention, the article may be returned to the prisoner.
68—Property taken from prisoners
(1) If money or other property is removed from a prisoner, the officer in charge of the police station must—
(a) cause a written record to be made of, and a receipt issued for, the money or other property; and
(b) request the prisoner to check and sign the written record.
(2) If a prisoner is unable or refuses to sign the record referred to in subregulation (1), the officer in charge of the police station must make a note on the record of that fact and the reason for that inability or refusal.
(3) Money or other property removed from a prisoner must be kept and stored in the manner directed by the Commissioner.
69—Illness or injury of prisoners
If it is necessary to obtain medical assistance for a prisoner who is ill or injured, the officer in charge of a police station—