The appellant, who was a Senior Constable with 16 years of service, was removed from his position following a domestic violence incident in August 2024. The respondent initiated loss of confidence proceedings, leading to the appellant's removal in April 2025 due to concerns about his integrity and conduct. The appellant appealed against his removal, seeking either reinstatement, or alternatively, compensation.

Two interlocutory matters were considered by the Commission. The first was an application by the appellant to amend his notice of appeal to recast his grounds of appeal. The application to amend the notice of appeal was not opposed by the respondent, and the Commission, at the hearing of the interlocutory hearings, granted the appellant leave to do so.

The second interlocutory matter was an application to tender new evidence under s 33R of the Police Act 1892 (WA), specifically witness statements from the appellant’s treating psychiatrist and a witness to the domestic violence incident.

In his application to tender new evidence, the appellant argued that the witness statement should be allowed as new evidence as it could show that the respondent acted on incomplete information at the time of his removal. The appellant also contended that the statement would demonstrate the willingness of the witness to cooperate with the investigation and provide evidence of his symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The Commission refused leave to admit the witness statement primarily because it was not contemporaneous with the relevant events and did not add materially new information. The statement was made over a year after the incident in question, whereas the witness had already made statements on the night of the incident, which were recorded in body-worn camera footage and included in earlier evidence. The Commission also found that the substance of the new witness statement was broadly consistent with this existing material, particularly regarding the appellant’s demeanour and symptoms, and therefore was not likely to show that the respondent acted on wrong or mistaken information, nor was it likely to have materially affected the decision to remove the appellant.

The Commission granted leave for the psychiatrist’s statement to be tendered as new evidence. This evidence was considered relevant and admissible because it addressed the appellant’s medical condition at the time of the incident and could potentially affect the assessment of the appellant’s conduct and the respondent’s decision to remove him.

 

The decision can be read here.