NC-102 - Stoppage of Pay and Allowances

The Appellant appealed a decision by the Force ordering the Stoppage of his Pay and Allowances. The Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Order (SPAO) was imposed as a result of Code of Conduct allegations of indecent acts and voyeurism. A statutory investigation into the Appellant’s alleged behaviour had been conducted by a local police department and the Appellant was charged with indecent acts, exposure and voyeurism.  

The Appellant appealed the SPAO Decision arguing that he was not clearly involved in the indecent acts or the voyeurism. The Appellant argued that the SPAO Decision was clearly unreasonable because the imposition of SPAO resulted in severe financial and personal consequences for the Appellant and his family. The Appellant also was of the view that the SPAO Decision was made in a manner that was at odds with the principles of procedural fairness.

The ERC found that the Appeal was referable and was presented within the relevant time limitation period. The ERC found that a number of arguments raised by the Appellant were inadmissible because they were raised for the first time on Appeal and the Appellant had not explained why he did not raise the arguments to the Respondent in his earlier submissions. The ERC explained why it dismissed the procedural fairness concerns raised by the Appellant. Regarding the merits, the ERC found that:

• The Respondent’s finding that the Appellant was clearly involved in the indecent acts involving civilians was not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent provided a sufficient roadmap that linked the evidence in the record to his finding of clear involvement for each indecent act incident. The Respondent’s reasons, which include his summaries of the evidence that he considered for each incident, adequately explain why he found that the Appellant was clearly involved in each indecent act incident. The Respondent also addressed the Appellant’s challenges to the evidence of the civilian witnesses and the objective evidence;

• The Respondent’s reasons indicate that he weighed the evidence in the record regarding the indecent act incidents involving the undercover operators against the Appellant’s submissions and the Appellant’s version of events described in his statement to the local police department, before determining that the Appellant was clearly involved in the deliberate act of exposing himself to both undercover operators in a public place; 

• The Respondent’s finding that the Appellant was clearly involved in the voyeurism is not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent clearly identified the evidence in the record that led him to conclude that the other person in the videorecordings did not consent to videorecordings and that she did not have knowledge of the videorecordings.  The ERC reviewed the video and photo evidence and found that the evidence before the Respondent could not be viewed as incapable of supporting the Respondent’s finding; and,

• The fact that a SPAO led to severe financial and personal consequences for the Appellant is not part of the criteria to be considered when imposing a SPAO.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal because the Respondent’s decision to impose a SPAO was not clearly unreasonable and was not reached in a manner that was procedurally unfair.

The Final Adjudicator accepted the ERC’s recommendation and dismissed the appeal.