The federal police refuses to say what action it took against three of its officers who botched the prosecution of a Canberra developer, saying it fears how its staff would react if the report was released.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Civil Liberties Australia said it should not take a "cloak of silence" to promote honesty among police officers and suggested an independent body could be better placed to conduct internal inquiries.
The trio of ACT Policing officers coincidentally and simultaneously failed to turn up in the ACT Magistrates Court in 2015 as witnesses for several charges against the developer.
Frustrated prosecutors were forced to ditch the case.
There is no allegation the developer had anything to do with the failed prosecution.
Professional standards were called in to probe the bungle, but police refused to publicly release the findings.
The federal police then suppressed almost 350 pages of documents about the three officers - whose names were also withheld - in response to a bid to access the material via a freedom of information request.
AFP FOI coordinator Nathan Scudder argued that, if the report was made available, the federal police believed its own staff would potentially break the law by refusing the cooperate with it in future internal inquiries.
An AFP spokeswoman later confirmed that, if it "releases documents relating to a professional standards investigation, it is reasonable to conclude that, in future, employees may be less frank and open with investigators.
"This would be detrimental to the AFP's ability to investigate complaints as efficiently and expediently, and take appropriate action."
Mr Scudder also argued ACT government agencies would be less willing to cooperate with the federal police if information they passed on was published.
He also said the AFP considered the three officers' right to privacy before deciding to suppress the documents.
Officers found to have committed misconduct can be subject to a number of sanctions, including counselling, warnings, increased supervision and training, criminal charges, and termination.
The spokeswoman said the AFP could not comment on the investigation's outcomes, but said the probe's findings "do not support the allegation that three AFP staff deliberately hamstrung the prosecution".
Civil Liberties Australia vice-president Tim Vines said he had been concerned by the suggestion that releasing documents under FOI would mean police would be less likely to be truthful and forthcoming in future inquiries.
"If this is true, we wonder what does that say about the AFP?," he said.
"If transparency would mean that internal inquiries can't be conducted then the police should no longer be responsible for reviewing their own conduct - and the AFP should give this power to an independent body.
"Alternatively, it suggests that the FOI decision-maker has significant doubts about the willingness of his colleagues to be honest and open.
"It shouldn't take a cloak of silence to promote honesty - that should be a core value for all serving officers and public servants. "
Mr Vines said the police had a public duty to perform their duties competently, and if they did not, had an obligation to explain why.
"Transparency is expected in other professions and plays a crucial part in maintaining confidence and trust."
Mr Vines said he understood there are some circumstances where it would not be appropriate to release the names of individual officers under FOI, for example if they were undercover, he doubted the work of street-level police would be significant hampered by such transparency.
He said it did not seem to be justified to redact all or most of the documents as well as the officers names.
"Indeed, we note that senior public servants often have their names released as part of FOI requests - and the wheels of government continue to turn," he said.
