This story "Overland defends deal between police and AFL" by Robin Grace, appears in 'The Age' on Oct 13. The following is a short important extract:
"Victoria's police chief says he scrapped a controversial deal between police and the AFL because he believed it was inappropriate.But he said today the deal had been deemed appropriate at the time and the officer who had approved the agreement had since been promoted to assistant commissioner.The deal, reported today in The Age, gave the league extraordinary rights to investigate football identities and to vet public disclosure of police inquiries.Chief Commissioner Simon Overland said today the deal was struck to clarify the way police dealt with the AFL over matters that would attract "enormous public interest".…"How could I defend it? I've scrapped it because I don't think it's appropriate for it to continue to exist," he told radio 3AW.Previously secret details of the deal, made public yesterday, show that police were required to consult the AFL before commenting on their own investigations into AFL players, coaches, board members and even staff. The deal also gave the AFL permission to "investigate matters of illegal betting" and serious crimes such as drug trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault."
I wonder if the contract was legal in the first place. Police cannot normally delegate its powers to a private entity with an obvious interest in the outcome of a criminal investigation. It was wrong for the AFL to assume it was above the normal citizen and to strike such an arrnagement. Putting aside the lack of statutory power to delegate police powers, if one assumes this power does in fact exist, the contract was voidable on a number of other grounds, namely:
1. It required the publication of personal, sensitive and obviously defamatory information to a third party civilian entity that could, if it so chose, use the information to influence the commercial decisions of the persons subject to, or connected with, police information and evidence. This was always an unacceptable and compromising position for the persons connected to any investigation;
2. There was an inherent denial of procedural fairness in that the individuals connected to any investigation were not offered the opportunity to deny the publication of the police information to civilian third parties (in particular the AFL itself). Plenty of innocent persons appear in police files. The publication of the files creates a real potential to cause unmitigated and unjustified damage to the reputation and families of the innocent persons. Why should the AFL have this knowledge and power to publish (even accidentally)?;
3. The public were denied procedural fairness in that the deal compromised the objectivity of the police to properly investigate any person connected to or associated with the AFL, including the AFL Corporate entity itself. No private citizen, whether an individual or a company such as the AFL pty/ltd should ever have that kind of power to influence any police force;
4. The deal compromised the chain of custody of the police files. In any criminal hearing, the police files are evidence and may need to be put before the Court. If the AFL have the files, there is a chance that they may be responsible for misplacing the file or parts of it, or for placing other documents on that file.
5. The deal gave the AFL an unfair commercial advantage in the sporting market place. The deal was always designed to protect the AFL's branding. In essence, the deal was a form of corruption. It was a way to ensure that the AFL did not have to deal with the police in the same way other Sports do when it comes to possible criminal charges and convictions of their sports stars.
The Special treatment given to the AFL by the terms of the contract placed them in a special position above that of other citizens. No police force is likely to enter into a contract with a Bikie Club to share files for joint investigation of their members, so how can the AFL justify this police contract?
The criticism for this outrageous arrangement must be equally shared by the AFL. They should not have made the agreement. I wonder if the AFL have similar arrangements with othe State Police Services?
1. It required the publication of personal, sensitive and obviously defamatory information to a third party civilian entity that could, if it so chose, use the information to influence the commercial decisions of the persons subject to, or connected with, police information and evidence. This was always an unacceptable and compromising position for the persons connected to any investigation;
2. There was an inherent denial of procedural fairness in that the individuals connected to any investigation were not offered the opportunity to deny the publication of the police information to civilian third parties (in particular the AFL itself). Plenty of innocent persons appear in police files. The publication of the files creates a real potential to cause unmitigated and unjustified damage to the reputation and families of the innocent persons. Why should the AFL have this knowledge and power to publish (even accidentally)?;
3. The public were denied procedural fairness in that the deal compromised the objectivity of the police to properly investigate any person connected to or associated with the AFL, including the AFL Corporate entity itself. No private citizen, whether an individual or a company such as the AFL pty/ltd should ever have that kind of power to influence any police force;
4. The deal compromised the chain of custody of the police files. In any criminal hearing, the police files are evidence and may need to be put before the Court. If the AFL have the files, there is a chance that they may be responsible for misplacing the file or parts of it, or for placing other documents on that file.
5. The deal gave the AFL an unfair commercial advantage in the sporting market place. The deal was always designed to protect the AFL's branding. In essence, the deal was a form of corruption. It was a way to ensure that the AFL did not have to deal with the police in the same way other Sports do when it comes to possible criminal charges and convictions of their sports stars.
The Special treatment given to the AFL by the terms of the contract placed them in a special position above that of other citizens. No police force is likely to enter into a contract with a Bikie Club to share files for joint investigation of their members, so how can the AFL justify this police contract?
The criticism for this outrageous arrangement must be equally shared by the AFL. They should not have made the agreement. I wonder if the AFL have similar arrangements with othe State Police Services?
This is frightening stuff. To think that the AFL parade their code of conduct around like it is a brand new Bible. Yet here they are, cutting clandestine deals with the police.
ReplyDeleteTHis is brand protection at its very lowest. I think there is another name for this type of gang mentality: it is called the mafia. ANd there it is: "the AFL Mafia".