Section 24 of the Police Act 1998 governs how a serious charge is investigated once laid.
Section 24(1) and (2)
(1) In any case where section 23 applies, the Commissioner shall appoint a disciplinary officer to investigate the matter and report to the Commissioner.
(2) The disciplinary officer shall be —
(a) a person other than the person who has charged the member; and
(b) of superior rank to the member charged.
Separation of charging from investigating. Section 23(2) allows a charge to be laid by the Commissioner or by an authorised commissioned officer. Section 24(2)(a) then removes that person from the investigation.
Rank. The investigator must be senior to the member charged. That prevents a member from being investigated by a peer or a junior.
The appointment is mandatory — “the Commissioner shall appoint”. There is no route by which a serious charge is determined without an investigation and report.
Section 24(3) — the material
The disciplinary officer shall consider —
- the reports relating to the charge;
- the reply and explanation (if any) of the member charged; and
- subject to subsection (4), any further reports that the disciplinary officer thinks fit.
Section 24 describes a documentary process. The disciplinary officer considers reports and the member’s written reply. The Act provides for no oral hearing, no examination of witnesses by the member, and no legal representation.
That places considerable weight on the member’s written reply under section 23(3)(c), and on the entitlement in section 23(3)(b) to copies of all reports that are to be considered — which arises only on request.
The Commissioner’s section 14 powers to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath are available to support an inquiry, but section 24 does not require them to be used, and the privilege against self-incrimination is preserved by section 14(5).
Section 59 of the Constitution makes the principles of natural justice part of the underlying law, requiring at minimum that the decision-maker act fairly and be seen to act fairly. What fairness demands in a particular case — and whether a documentary process suffices where credibility is genuinely in issue — will depend on the circumstances.
Section 24(4) — the right to answer new reports
Where the disciplinary officer receives a report which was not available to the member charged at the time the member was charged, or within seven days thereafter, a copy of that report shall be supplied to the member, and the member shall have the right to reply to that report.
Subsection (3) allows the officer to consider any further reports thought fit. Without subsection (4), a member could be found guilty on material never seen.
Subsection (4) closes that. The obligations are mandatory — a copy shall be supplied, and the member shall have the right to reply.
Note the timing benchmark: material not available at the time of charging or within seven days after. So the trigger is whether the member effectively had it during the reply period, not merely whether it existed.
No time limit is stated for the reply to a later report. In practice a member should reply promptly and record the date the report was received.
What happens next
| Step | Provision | Who |
|---|---|---|
| Charge laid | s 23(2) | Commissioner or authorised commissioned officer |
| Charge furnished; reports supplied on request; 14 days to reply | s 23(3) | — |
| No reply within time → deemed denial | s 23(5) | — |
| Disciplinary officer appointed to investigate | s 24(1), (2) | Commissioner appoints |
| Reports, reply and further material considered | s 24(3), (4) | Disciplinary officer |
| Report to the Commissioner: sustained or not, and recommended punishment | s 25(1) | Disciplinary officer |
| Penalty imposed, or charge dismissed | s 25(2), (3) | Commissioner |
| Where the Commissioner does not accept a “not sustained” report → second officer’s review, accepted without further formality | s 25(4) | A disciplinary officer not connected with the first recommendation |
If the charge is not sustained
(3) Where the disciplinary officer reports that the charge has not been sustained, and the Commissioner, after considering the report, is of the same opinion, the Commissioner shall dismiss the charge.
(4) Where the Commissioner does not accept in the first instance that a charge is not sustained, the matter shall be referred to a disciplinary officer not connected with the first recommendation for a review and report — and the recommendation contained in the review will be accepted without further formality.
Section 25(4) permits the Commissioner one disagreement with a “not sustained” finding, and no more. The second officer’s recommendation is accepted without further formality — whichever way it goes.
That prevents a charge being recycled until a favourable report is obtained, and it is a meaningful limit on the Commissioner’s otherwise final authority under section 27.
Where a charge is dismissed, any suspension must be lifted immediately on a finding to that effect — section 28(3).
Sources
- Police Act 1998 — ss 14, 19, 23–28
- Constitution — ss 37, 59
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Police Act 1998 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.