Coroners request and the Police Integrity Commission

Recent findings and recommendations made by the NSW Coroner in relation to the death of a young Brazilian Boy.

Summing up the Coroner recommended that the conduct of five NSW Police Officers be referred to and for the Police Integrity Commission to investigate. Personally and from past experience I have no faith in the PIC to investigate or have the Police on behalf of the PIC investigate the conduct of any police officer, and the Ombudsman to oversight.

I will with this page provide a copy of correspondence dated the 20th March 2007 attached to 35 documents confirmed the complaints the details of the PIC set out in their correspondence the PIC required Professional Standards Command to investigate and the Ombudsman to oversight on behalf of the PIC, which today no investigation has never been commenced and the Police and the Ombudsman have provided no explanation and the PIC has shown to have failed in its duty of care, to ensure that a full and thorough investigation was carried out.

ABN 22 B70 745 340
20 March 2007 Our Ret: 362/82

Director, Strategic Support
Professional Standards Command
NSW Police Force
Level 3, 45 Clarence Street

Dear Sir,
Pursuant to s/s 56(4)(a), 70(4)(c) and 72 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, \ hereby refer the attached non-referred Category 1 complaint to the Commissioner of Police to be dealt with in accordance with Part 8A of the Police Act 1990. The material was notified to this Commission by a member of the public.
Details of the complaint are contained in the attached document (barcodes 6936094 - 6936129). The complaint alleges lied during proceedings / in statement / on affidavit, failure to investigate (internal investigation), improper interference in an investigation by another police officer involving DSC W. D. Hy (1963-) / former Sen Sgt A. F. Pk (1205-).
The Commission does not require a final report in relation to the investigation of this matter.

Yours Sincerely

Per John Pritchard

A copy of the same correspondence and advice the PIC attached to 35 documents and on the same date addressed to the NSW Ombudsman.

Failing in my case as the PIC did to not require the Police or the Ombudsman to submit a final report, I alleged to the Inspector of the PIC that the PIC had failed to exercise its publicly funded “Duty of Care”, which both the PIC and the Inspector of the ICAC past and present have dismissed.

What in my case is not consistent with the dismissing of my allegation that the PIC was in breach of the PIC’s duty of care? Are the contents of a report the PIC published of telephone intercept material about 3 person’s.

The following material is a copy of a report prepared by the then Inspector of the PIC:

Notation to Mallard Report re Report by Inspector of PIC concerning the publication of telephone intercept material about 3 persons

The publication by the Commission in its Mallard Report of telephone intercept material concerning Quenten Rts, Michelle Rts and Adam Ps ex-wife was the subject of a self-initiated report by the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. in a report dated 1 February 2011 the Inspector found that the overall effect of the publication of the material in question was capable of damaging the interests and reputations of the three persons publicly identified in this manner and that the Commission had no authority to produce and furnish so much of the Mallard Report as was damaging to the reputations of each of these three persons; unless and until the Commission had accorded them procedural farness, and to the extent that the Mallard Report has damaged those reputations or any of them, it has been produced in breach of the Commission's duty of care.

In addition, the Inspector found that in publishing the telephone intercept material in the circumstances identified in his report, the Commission did so contrary to the terms and intendment of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, and in doing so acted unlawfully.

While the Commission does not agree with these findings, nevertheless the Commission does consider it appropriate in the circumstances to make this notation.



The responsibility or the legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions (which can be
reasonably foreseen) to be likely to cause harm to others.

The harm caused to me by the PIC omitting to have the Police and the Ombudsman submit a final report, history proves, the advice provided the Police and the Ombudsman together to decide that they need not commence any investigation into evidence I allege both knew if investigated properly, would result in Police officers being prosecuted and convicted of having committing acts of misconduct that perverted the course of justice.

As a result of Police corruption, the financial losses I suffered in 1994 were legally quantified at $427, 495.00 and amount the Police and the Ombudsman are well aware of.

I will be interested to see if (a) the PIC commence any investigation into the conduct of the five police officers, and (b) if again as it did in the case of the Police officers the PIC assessed as having committed category one offences, if the PIC again fails to exercise its publicly funded duty of care.

Robert Lee.