The CMC’s Cerberus team, a multidisciplinary unit dedicated to investigating internet-based offending, repeat offenders and paedophile networks, has run 39 operations since its establishment in 2008.
Formerly known as Egret, the history of the Cerberus team goes back to 2001 when a special multidisciplinary unit was created within the then Queensland Crime Commission to conduct investigations relating to networked paedophilia and online child sex offending.
To date, Cerberus operations have led to the prosecution of 45 offenders on 389 charges relating to the possession and distribution of child exploitation material and networked criminal paedophilia.
The Cerberus team works closely with the Queensland Police Service's Taskforce Argos.
Most recently, the efforts of the Cerberus team in securing convictions involved the complex prosecution of a 51 year old man from Macleay Island.
The offender was arrested by members of the Cerberus team in December 2009 and charged with numerous offences relating to the possession of and access to child exploitation material.
In the CMC’s experience, it is rare that a defendant charged with accessing and possessing child exploitation material goes to full trial. In this case, however, the offender – an IT specialist – raised a ‘Trojan’ defence.
The offender claimed that a hacker or multiple hackers had compromised his computers over several years to search for, download, store and view child exploitation material. The offender also stated that he regularly cloned client hard drives to his own computers, which he claimed could also explain the existence of the child exploitation material.
Complex, expert evidence was lead to painstakingly rebut these defences, with the CMC’s Cerberus team and Forensic Computing Unit providing significant technical evidence for the prosecution.
In February 2012, the offender was found guilty of all charges – one charge of accessing child exploitation material and three charges of possessing child exploitation material. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to serve 12 months.
]]>
Our organised crime markets assessment will inform law enforcement agencies and the Queensland community about current and emerging crime issues such as cybercrime, money laundering and the increasing prevalence of ‘designer’ drugs.
We will examine:
Unclassified versions of the reports will be available to the public towards the end of 2012.
]]>There are a number of misconduct prevention issues for public officials to consider in using social media for official purposes and in personal use.
Increasingly, agencies are using social media for public communication. Technologies such as Facebook, Twitter and SMS offer up-to-the-minute sharing of information with the public, as demonstrated by the Queensland Police Services and Department of Emergency Services during the 2011 Queensland floods. Agencies are also using social media for internal business uses, such as professional communication, idea-sharing and stakeholder networking.
While these technologies offer benefits for agencies and the public, it is important to recognise that an agency’s Facebook site or Twitter account is as public and official as a media release or report. Easier communication does not mean that less rigour should be applied in communication processes and approvals.
For official use of social media, agencies should refer to the Queensland Government Official use of social media policy. Agencies should ensure that they have conducted suitable risk assessments and developed adequate policies and procedures governing all official use of social media.
In all matters relating to personal use of social media, agencies have a responsibility to educate employees about the policies and legal constraints that apply.
Some agencies block access to social media technologies to reduce the risk of misuse. Some agencies have a policy which permits limited, reasonable personal use of agency ICT equipment, based upon the Queensland Government Information Standard 38 – Use of ICT facilities and devices. In this case, there is an onus on supervisors to ensure that this policy is complied with.
Codes of conduct provide standards of conduct that are consistent with the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (the Act). Under section 24 of the Act, if you breach your code of conduct any disciplinary action is dealt with under the legislation by which you are employed.
The Code of Conduct for Queensland Public Servants (s.4.3) provides a basis for disciplinary action against employees who make inappropriate use of agency ICT facilities.
The Code of Conduct for Queensland Public Servants (s.1.3) provides a basis for disciplinary action against employees who make inappropriate or damaging public comment about the business of the agency. The ‘public comment’ provisions of the Code of Conduct are also applicable to inappropriate comments on work matters that are made by staff using official facilities in non-work time, for example lunch time or any other time out of work hours.
The majority of misconduct incidents in this area stem from employees believing that what they post on social media from their own facilities or in their own time is a private conversation. The reality, both in law and in practice, is that anything posted on social media has effectively been published for anyone to read, and is capable of being widely distributed without the consent or knowledge of the person who posted it.
The Public Service Act 2008 (s.187.4) specifies that any ‘inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the public service’ is a disciplinary offence.
Following a series of landmark legal cases, Twitter, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and other providers have accepted that they can be compelled to reveal the identities of people who post under pseudonyms or avatars. Many of these providers no longer oppose applications to reveal the identity of users.
If staff have a legitimate complaint to make about an agency, they should follow accepted processes such as those set out in the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2010.
]]>In all matters, the CMC has established there is currently no evidence of official misconduct on the part of Campbell Newman in relation to the allegations raised while he was Lord Mayor of Brisbane.
On that basis, the CMC will not be conducting any investigation in relation to Mr Newman.
The three matters are:
In the first matter, the CMC’s assessment has concluded that there is no evidence of official misconduct against Mr Newman particularly given no significant decisions occurred in the commercial history of the property transaction between the Brisbane City Council and Mirvac during his time as Lord Mayor.
However, the CMC is of the view that the matter should be referred to the Queensland Ombudsman to inquire further into the issue of whether there is any evidence of administrative deficiency on the part of the Council (after Mr Newman’s term as Lord Mayor).
In the second matter, the CMC’s assessment has determined that based on available information, there is no evidence of official misconduct against Mr Newman. In particular, the CMC notes that a review of Brisbane City Council records (including an audio recording of the relevant Council meeting) shows Mr Newman was not present when a critical vote was taken in Council that approved the Woolloongabba development.
With respect to this matter, on 15 March 2012, the Premier Anna Bligh referred to the CMC material which suggested that a company associated with the property developer had an office in a building owned by interests associated with Mr Newman.
The CMC has concluded that this information does not add anything further to its assessment of the matter.
Associates of Mr Newman have publicly indicated that the premises referred to were leased to an accountancy firm, and that the relevant company was one of many which used that firm’s address for the purposes of formally reporting a registered address or principal place of business.
The CMC’s inquiries have confirmed that the premises were indeed used as an accountancy firm. The CMC is of the view that this renders any link between Mr Newman and the property developer tenuous at best.
While the CMC has determined there is no evidence of official misconduct against Mr Newman in this matter, it has decided to commence a misconduct investigation into the circumstances of the alleged developer donations.
It is not appropriate for the CMC to comment further while the investigation is under way. Nor will it confirm or deny the identity of any person of interest.
In the third matter, the CMC’s assessment has concluded that, whatever might be the position with respect to the two Brisbane City Council staff, there is no evidence of misconduct against Mr Newman and it is unlikely that a full investigation will produce any such evidence. The Council has already dealt with the conduct of the two officers. In these circumstances, the CMC has determined to take no further action.
Further, in October last year, the CMC assessed a separate complaint against Mr Newman which alleged he may have failed to disclose certain financial and non-financial interests, as required by legislation, while he was Lord Mayor. The CMC concluded Mr Newman did not breach any disclosure requirements and, therefore, decided to take no further action with relation to the matter.
The CMC’s decision in all matters has been made unanimously by the Commission (the Chairperson and four Commissioners).
]]>In his announcement the Attorney-General said:
“Mr Martin has dedicated his life to public service through the legal profession and I congratulate him on his appointment to such an important role,” Mr Lucas said.
“He brings close to 30 years legal experience to the CMC following a distinguished career with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions where he has most recently been Deputy Director.
“Highly regarded by the legal profession he has led prosecutions for some of Queensland’s most high profiled criminal trials including against Dr Jayant Patel and former Minister Gordon Nuttall.
“Known as a fearless prosecutor and tireless, Mr Martin has the qualities needed to head the CMC.”
If you are elected, your term starts the day after the conclusion of the election. If you are appointed, it starts on the day you are appointed. You must make a formal Declaration of Office before you perform any official duties.
As a local government councillor, you are bound at all times by the Local Government Act 2009, which sets out the following principles:
These principles have priority over any election platform or policy, and you are elected to enact and realise them to the best of your ability. Your primary function is to serve the best interests of the community as a whole, rather than those of any particular section or interest group.
If your council has a code of conduct, you must also adhere to its provisions.
You must not misrepresent your personal position on an issue as being that of the council. You cannot publically express your disagreement with a council decision until that decision has been made public, and must not use confidential information to explain your disagreement.
You will automatically stop being a councillor if you are convicted of an offence relating to treason, electoral practices, bribery or lack of integrity.
Secondary employment
You are taken to have resigned as a local government employee the day before you become a councillor.
As a senior councillor you:
Allowances
Records management
Further information
See the Councillor Conduct Guide further information on topics including:
Records
When you cease employment as a councillor, it is an offence to:
Council property
Subsequent employment
After you leave office:
The investigation, codenamed Operation Nighthawk, commenced in September 2010 and ran for seven months.
The CMC initially acted on allegations that a police sergeant was supplying ecstasy and amphetamines to other police officers and members of the public for use at social gatherings.
The investigation revealed alleged drug-related police misconduct by a group of six female officers and one female Queensland Police Service (QPS) civilian employee — all based in the Logan District.
CMC Acting Chairperson Warren Strange said Operation Nighthawk underlined ‘zero tolerance’ of drug-related police misconduct.
However, Mr Strange stressed that the investigation did not establish wider drug-related police misconduct beyond this group. The evidence also only pointed to illegal drug activity for recreational purposes.
Operation Nighthawk’s main target, Natasha Nichole Fewson, 37, resigned as a police sergeant in November 2010 after the CMC executed search warrants and located amphetamines at her residence.
Appearing before Brisbane’s District Court today, Ms Fewson pleaded guilty to five counts of supplying dangerous drugs — 1 x cannabis, 1 x MDMA (ecstasy) and 3 x methylamphetamine (speed) — and one count of possessing dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine). She was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for a period of 18 months.
Ms Fewson appeared alongside a male associate, Mark Barry, 47, also her brother, who pleaded guilty to eight counts of supplying dangerous drugs — 1 x cannabis and 7 x methylamphetamine — and one count of possessing dangerous drugs (cannabis). He was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for a period of 18 months.
Operation Nighthawk also identified sufficient evidence to support recommendations by the CMC for disciplinary action against the investigation’s six remaining subjects. In two cases disciplinary action was taken by the QPS. However, the other four resigned before disciplinary proceedings could be considered.
The CMC’s investigation recommended disciplinary action against:
Drug-related police misconduct investigations remain a CMC priority in the wake of Operation Tesco hearings (September 2010) and public report (June 2011) arising from a separate investigation into allegations that some Gold Coast police officers were involved in the use and supply of dangerous drugs, supply of confidential police information to assist criminal associates and receipt of benefits in connection with those activities.
Mr Strange commended the QPS for acting swiftly to develop new strategies aimed at addressing risk areas of policing. To date, among other initiatives, the QPS has introduced a new gifts and benefits policy, which took effect 1 January 2012.
‘It’s important to qualify that neither investigation [Tesco or Nighthawk] found widespread evidence of corruption or misconduct in the police service,’ Mr Strange said. ‘Instead, the evidence points to misconduct by a small number of police.
‘The QPS has taken some important steps in addressing identified issues, including improving the quality of overall supervision of its officers and ongoing development of related policies.
‘Importantly, work is in the pipeline to progress the police service’s drug and alcohol policy and, on this front it’s encouraging that the Police Commissioner has publicly stated that random drug testing is a necessary consideration and probably inevitable.’
In a related move, last year, the Queensland Government-appointed independent panel that reviewed the state’s police complaints, discipline and misconduct system, recommended that ‘in consultation with the CMC and relevant unions’, a review and business case be developed for targeted drug and alcohol testing consistent with developments of leading practice in other jurisdictions and occupations. The government has set a 2013 implementation date for this recommendation.
Mr Strange said the CMC welcomed the opportunity to work with the QPS and relevant stakeholders on improving the QPS’s drug and alcohol policy strategy, in the interests of both its officers and the wider community.
]]>Misconduct statistics for July 2010–June 2011 period are available in the Annual Report 2010–11.
Acting Chairperson Warren Strange says the move will involve the CMC taking action on three fronts, by:
‘The CMC has, in line with its statutory responsibility to oversight allegations of misconduct in Queensland’s public sector, been closely monitoring the University’s handling of this matter,’ Mr Strange said.
‘At no time has the CMC closed its oversight and, in the public interest, we have decided to take this course of action due to the seriousness of the allegations and to ensure public confidence is maintained in the University and its ability to deal with any future complaints involving suspected official misconduct.’
Mr Strange said it was not appropriate to comment further until the CMC had concluded its inquiries.
Separately, he said the CMC’s decision to conduct a quality review of the University’s overall management of official misconduct matters would help identify strengths and weaknesses in its handling of complaints.
‘The CMC places a strong emphasis on helping public sector agencies build their capacity to prevent and deal with suspected misconduct,’ Mr Strange said.
‘One of the key reasons for this is that a culture of integrity can only be successfully embedded within an agency or institution when it takes responsibility for the wrongdoings of its own officers.
‘A quality review of the University’s management of complaints will enable us to identify any opportunities to strengthen the capacity of the University to prevent and deal with future official misconduct.’
The CMC will also refer any relevant information concerning the University’s admission procedures to the Queensland Ombudsman, which has jurisdiction over administrative practice and decision-making by agencies.
]]>CMC Acting Director Financial Investigations David Goody says the CMC has obtained several Supreme Court restraining orders over a substantial list of assets identified in the case since 9 December 2011. The fifth order was obtained today.
‘In this case, we have worked in close collaboration with the Queensland Police Service’s (QPS) Fraud and Corporate Crime Group to identify and restrain assets that include a New Farm property, accounts with several banks, cars, art works and other items including jet skis, furniture and a piano,’ Mr Goody said.
‘The Public Trustee of Queensland has taken possession of all assets restrained to date and the CMC will ultimately seek to forfeit them to the state.’
‘This is a complex case and should other assets come to light, we will continue to work on behalf of the state to seek relevant restraining orders.’
Under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the CMC has responsibility to administer the state’s non-conviction-based civil confiscation scheme. The Act gives the CMC the power to restrain property regardless of whether or not a person has been charged with an offence.
Mr Goody said the CMC worked closely with the QPS and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in identifying and litigating proceeds of crime matters, as well as with the Public Trustee of Queensland, responsible for property restrained and held by the state.
He said confiscation proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 were civil proceedings conducted in the Supreme Court, with issues of fact decided on the balance of probabilities.
He added that a respondent or innocent third party may seek to exclude from forfeiture any property shown to have been legally acquired.
In the alleged Queensland Health fraud case, the CMC first received a QPS request for assistance on 9 December 2011 and moved to restrain assets the same day.
Mr Morehu-Barlow was arrested on 12 December 2011 and charged with fraud the following day. As the matter is currently before the courts, it is not appropriate for the CMC to comment further.
In the past financial year (2010-11), the CMC’s proceeds of crime team set a new annual record. As a result of their efforts, $9.3 million worth of criminally derived assets were returned to the state – the highest annual total in the CMC’s history, almost doubling the former record of $5.5 million, set the previous year.
Since 2003, when the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 came into force, the CMC has returned $36 million to the state and restrained $142 million worth of property.
]]>