A former Tasmania Police constable fired one day before his probation ended will get another chance to challenge his sacking after a tribunal found the police commissioner had effectively terminated him.
Daniel Saunders joined Tasmania Police as a trainee in October 2023 and trained at the Rokeby academy.
He was appointed as a constable on May 3, 2024, subject to a 12-month probation period.
Three days before it was due to end, Commissioner Donna Adams wrote to Saunders saying she would not confirm him in the role.
In the April 30 letter, Adams said Saunders had displayed behaviours “not reflective of our organisational values”, including “excessive use of force” and “deceptive behaviour when dealing with your supervisors”.
She said he had also shown “unprofessional behaviour when representing Tasmania Police, poor decision making and an inability to accept responsibility for your actions”.
“On the basis of the information before me I am of the view that you are unsuitable to be confirmed in your appointment as a constable and as a result … I have determined to refuse to confirm your appointment,” she wrote.
According to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (TASCAT) decision, the letter went a step further, stating Saunders’ employment would end as soon as it was served on him.
He received it on May 2, one day before his probation was due to expire.
Saunders asked the Police Review Board to examine the decision, but it refused.
The board found the commissioner had no power to sack a probationary officer and that a refusal to confirm his appointment was not a decision it could review.
Saunders then took the matter to TASCAT, which ruled in his favour on July 15.
Deputy President Richard Grueber found a probationary constable was not a lesser class of officer, but an ordinary constable with the same rights as any other, including the right to have a dismissal reviewed.
He also found Adams had terminated Saunders, despite describing the decision as a refusal to confirm his appointment.
Had she simply refused to confirm him, his appointment would have lapsed when his probation ended.
Instead, she ended his employment immediately by notice, which Grueber found amounted to termination under the Police Service Act.
He said her actions were “entirely consistent with termination” because she had done everything required to lawfully dismiss an officer.
The one-day difference, he said, “matters not”.
Grueber set aside the board’s decision and sent the case back for review “in accordance with law”.
