High-ranking NSW Police Officer Guilty of Mid-Range Drink Driving After Crash in Sydney Tunnel

A senior officer from NSW Police has been found guilty of mid-range drink driving following a crash in the NorthConnex tunnel. With strict legal oversight and sensational evidence presented, the officer, whose name is kept confidential by law, had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol before getting behind the wheel.

P24 News Media

November 23, 2024

1 minute

186

High-ranking NSW Police Officer Guilty of Mid-Range Drink Driving After Crash in Sydney Tunnel

India

A senior officer within the New South Wales Police Force has been convicted of mid-range drink driving after being implicated in a crash that occurred in Sydney's NorthConnex tunnel. The incident took place in May 2023 and led to serious charges against the officer, whose identity has been obscured for legal reasons. Initially facing allegations of high-range drink driving, the officer maintained a plea of not guilty throughout the proceedings.

During a session at the Downing Centre Local Court, the officer's legal counsel, Tim Lowe, conveyed to the magistrate that both sides had reached a consensus regarding a summary of evidence. This evidence did not sufficiently substantiate the more severe high-range drink driving charge. Instead, it established a mid-range offence, which could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, according to Mr. Lowe.

Previously, an opportunity to resolve the charge through a mid-range offence existed, but limitations in the statute precluded the Crown from pursuing that option. The court subsequently explored an "alternative verdict" for a lesser charge, enabled via provisions within the Road Transport Act. This approach was agreed upon by both the defense and the prosecution, predicated on a comprehensive set of agreed factual details spanning 23 pages.

The Crown Prosecutor, Eric Balodis, highlighted the presence of "disputes" among pharmacologists concerning the officer's blood alcohol level. After evaluating the presented facts, Magistrate Rachael Wong inquired if there were any impediments that would prevent a guilty verdict in the absence of a formal blood test. Mr. Balodis confirmed that the court could depend on expert calculations regarding the potential blood alcohol levels based on the number of alcoholic beverages consumed. He argued that the evidence supported a reading that did not exceed .137, categorizing it firmly in the mid-range.

However, this proposed resolution hit a legal stumbling block when Magistrate Wong raised concerns about the validity of the existing charge, citing that it did not specify a blood-alcohol reading. This detail may pose challenges to apply the alternative verdict provision unless the charge's documentation is verified as legitimate.

Mr. Balodis contended that a range of potential readings was always going to be difficult to ascertain, and Mr. Lowe acknowledged the complication of providing such a specific detail in the context. The parties suggested that the Crown might adjust the court documents to reflect a range of potential readings.

Ultimately, the magistrate accepted the amended court documents that allowed for the possibility of a high-range reading, as indicated in an earlier report which had been updated subsequently. The discrepancy among expert opinions stemmed from slight variations in the calculations utilized to estimate possible blood alcohol readings.

Following this, the magistrate decided to proceed with the alternative verdict of guilt for the mid-range offence. Consequently, the Crown retracted a second charge regarding driving under the influence. In a related inquiry, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) separately examined how this officer's case was handled. The investigation revealed instances of "serious misconduct" in which the officer was deemed to have been treated with unwarranted leniency by his superiors following the crash.

According to the LECC report, which was published in July, the officer had consumed a significant number of alcoholic beverages at two distinct hotels before operating the vehicle that collided with a concrete safety barrier. The officer subsequently abandoned the vehicle, leaving it parked in a neighboring street, only to admit to his commander later that he had "stuffed up."

Further misconduct findings emerged, focusing on the officer's intentional dishonesty in his responses on an insurance claim form regarding the crash, in which he claimed he had fallen asleep without mentioning his alcohol consumption. The report referred to the officer as a "senior and experienced officer," who occupied a highly regarded position within the NSW Police Force.

The Commission determined that the officer received preferential treatment, which compromised the integrity of the entire NSW Police Force. The case has been adjourned until February for sentencing.