STORIES  Guidelines for STORIES 080524.pdf

One of the most interesting and demanding tasks I had as Acting Director of Personnel (from December 1992 to January 1994 while the Public Sector Management Commission inquiry into the Service was being conducted) prior to the position being 'civilianised', was to cease the partnership with two universities and to reintroduce our own recruit course. (I still feel that it would have been preferable to leave an Assistant Commissioner in charge of personnel, recruiting, education and training.)

I am compiling this article from memory but I am confident that the absence of files will not alter its intent. Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan requested that I initiate action to ‘get out of bed with the universities and devise a course which would be run for potential police officers by mainly police officers’.

Before writing further about what transpired, it is timely to indicate the basis of the previous course. All recruits went to either Griffith University or Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for a semester full-time and then spent the next semester at the QPS Academy. They went to either university regardless of their standard of education. While at university, their salary was paid by the Service and they were given a book allowance and physical education gear. (From memory they spent some time at the Academy undertaking physical education training.)

After their twelve months at university and the academy, they were then sworn in to the Service. People have criticised this course because it was very academic and lacked practical tuition. Much was made out of the academy being a tertiary institution because the recruits graduated with a third of a degree and were encouraged to continue their studies. It would be interesting to learn how many did this in reality. The first intake of this course was about four hundred recruits. Many came straight from high school so much so that the long-established minimum swearing in age was reduced by an amendment to the relevant Act of parliament from nineteen to eighteen.

The Service had entered into contracts with the two universities for three years. When I indicated that we were going to run our own course without their assistance, I ended up in the Minister’s office the next day. Fortunately I had warned Minister Paul Braddy of the potential for this and he supported the Commissioner’s request. We indicated that we were prepared to pay them for the last of the six semesters because they had contracted lecturers for it.  The universities agreed to our proposition and recruits ceased to go to the universities as they had done previously.

Obviously many people at the universities, and several at the academy, did not agree with our actions. With the return to the six month recruit course, some of the previous senior instructional staff at the academy were displaced and some if not all of these were quite vocal against our intentions.

Readers who are former Queensland Police Officers will no doubt recall their days as a probationary as many of us did twelve weeks. With the one, two and three year structured cadet system being disbanded, the recruit course was built up under the Lewis administration to six months. Unfortunately, like the height-weight-ratio, this course was thrown out with the bath water and the previously mentioned arrangement substituted. The head of the Academy at the time was Superintendent Arch Harrison. He retired soon after this happened.

When I was looking around for people to devise the new recruit course, who better than Mr Arch Harrison to join two serving police officers—Inspector (later Superintendent) Paul Lostroh and Senior Sergeant Geoff Gartner who later left the QPS to become a lecturer at the Goulburn Police Academy. The other team member selected was Mr Geof Dean who was then a lecturer at QUT, but more importantly, a former lecturer at the Academy.

I am sure that the team, which was headed by Inspector Lostroh, consulted widely within the Service and took advice from people who were often critical of the type of constable the university-academy was turning out. They suffered resistance but kept at their task which had a tight time-line. They needed support from the administration and they certainly got that. They modeled the course largely on that being run at the Goulburn (New South Wales) Academy.

Running with the design of the new course, was a review of our recruiting procedures and that was when it was approved that potential recruits who had life and world experience in other occupations, would be considered; for example a former sergeant in the armed services; a school teacher; a registered nurse or a former manager of a stock and station agent (I used to speak of one at Charters Towers—hopefully there was one there). The Minister and the Commissioner were very supportive of this move in that it prevented suggestions that we were only interested in persons who had half or more of a university degree, or had completed the Diploma in Justice Studies, which was designed for potential police officers, correctional officers, security officers and Justice Department employees.

What we did resulted in recruits entering the academy with a good education and/or good life and world experience, with a current first aid certificate, able to do twenty-five words per minute on a typewriter, be physically fit after passing thirteen physical competency tests as well as be able to pass a driving test. Since 1993 we got this type of recruit into the academy free-of-charge but I think that in 2016 the entrance standards have been reduced somewhat. 

The big thing was at that time the lack of cost. The three years tied to the universities cost the Service eleven and a half million dollars for salary and the allowances mentioned previously. This was to get them to the academy to begin training there. A big difference with which readers will readily agree.

Sure, there have been some modifications to the course which was introduced under my watch but the fact remains that it has been evaluated by qualified persons at the request of the Service and by others who were probably opposed to it from the first time I mentioned it. It has survived whereas the one it was largely modeled on in New South Wales I believe has been displaced by something similar to what we had to encounter.

I do not think any reader would oppose what was done after reading my brief account of the things that transpired. I think that this story has not been told before by anyone else mainly because not many know of it from beginning to end.

The First Response Handbook is now issued to all officers and should be carried by all operational police while on duty but that was not always the case. Prior to the early days of the Newnham Administration (1989–1992), all Queensland police officers were issued with the Police Manual and several Acts, with amendments for the manual and Acts being dispatched to stations/establishments regularly. (Whether members got them and if they did whether they inserted them are unanswered questions.)

An edict came out in about 1990 that all personal-issue manuals were to be withdrawn and that a station/establishment copy was to be kept, though no amendments were ever received. A group was assembled to write new instructions-procedures and I recall then acting Sergeant Alan Davey being seconded to Brisbane from the North Coast Region to assist with this task. It is my belief that the Operational Procedures Manual resulted from these efforts but this was not for a few years after the withdrawal of manuals.

What this meant was that operational police particularly—even after the Operational Procedures Manual was issued to stations/establishments only—had no ready reference on which to rely for assistance in times of need.  Later the Bulletin Board provided continuous computerised access to relevant information, procedures, legislation and so on but that also occurred a long time after the manuals were withdrawn.

While over-viewing education and training on behalf of Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan, I became aware of a booklet called ‘The First Response Handbook’ which was being prepared in Toowoomba by former Superintendent Trevor Wockner (formally regional education and training coordinator Southern Region), and his education and training team with the support of former Deputy Commissioner (then- Assistant Commissioner) Ron McGibbon. (Senior Sergeant Shane Secculd was also involved at Toowoomba).

I knew Trevor from his days under my control in the North Coast Region and then as the regional education and training coordinator at Toowoomba. I soon got in contact with him and realised that he and his team were developing a much needed aid to policing in this state.

Trevor was invited to make a presentation on the handbook at a Senior Executive Conference. I recall a senior person saying after the presentation that he could think of a hundred reasons why we should not have such a handbook. I also recall then saying that I could think of 101 reasons for the handbook. Commissioner O’Sullivan supported the need for such a handbook and the project continued but still as an initiative of Southern Region.

Then came a request for money to print the handbook. Mr David Gill, as Director, Human Resources Division, provided this and sufficient copies were produced so that they could be distributed throughout the state. The handbook was of a size that it could fit into a shirt pocket and contained the points that officers should follow on their many and varied tasks. Where relevant, it referred officers to the Operational Procedures Manual but it was always a good guide from which to start the task and above all to prevent it being mucked up.

I recall taking a box of such handbooks to the Police Academy one day so that all of the soon-to-be-sworn-in recruits could be issued with one. I also recall giving a handbook to a recruit in the front row and at the same time asking him what he might have to deal with next week. He replied, ‘A sudden death’. I then asked him to find what was in the handbook on this subject—not knowing if it was covered or not. He soon found the relevant page or pages and handed it up to me. I quickly found that there were at least ten causes of death covered in the handbook. This was a pleasant surprise.

Prior to receiving their copy of the handbook, these recruits had undertaken their entire course with the assistance of non-personal issue Operational Procedures Manuals and other material which was available in the library.

Since the efforts of Trevor and the Southern Region education and training team, together with support from then Assistant Commissioner Ron McGibbon unfolded, the Service has taken the manual over as an official issue and this has resulted in it being reprinted several times.

The following story was researched and written by Mr Drew Wall and Mrs Deborah Cook, distant relatives of the late Constable Daniel Could Copley (1927-1864).  In 2016, at their request, Copley was considered for inclusion in the Queensland Police Service Honour Roll and the National Police Memorial in Canberra.  However, due to not being able to confirm the circumstances which lead to his drowning, it was determined he does not meet the criteria for inclusion on either of these entities.

In 2010 the Darling Downs Branch of the Queensland Retired Police Association was instrumental, in conjunction with the Toowoomba City Council (now the Toowoomba Regional Council), in having the Queensland Retired Police Memorial Wall placed in the Toowoomba and Drayton Cemetery. 

An application by Mr Wall and Mrs Cook and the payment of $250 saw approval being given by the Darling Downs Branch for the late Constable Copley’s details to be put on a plaque and placed on the Wall.  

Greg Early, State President QRPA, 23 December 2016.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Provincial News Toowoomba reported on the week of the 24th March 1864 the following:

“I regret to state that the most melancholy event occurred in Drayton on Patrick’s night. It appears Constable Copley who is in charge of the lock-up there, had been out spending the evening, but as he had not returned home that night, a search was initiated next morning, which was carried on all day without success, till on Saturday morning one of the public wells was dragged, and sad to relate the unfortunate man was found drowned.”

Daniel Gould Copley was born in Kanturk County Cork Ireland in February 1827 and emigrated to Australia with his brother Kerry Gould in 1856 to join his elder brother Pierce Gould who arrived in 1840. He married Anne McMahon at St Luke’s Church Toowoomba on June 12 1862.  Anne arrived with her family in Australia on the Ghensis Khan on the 18^th August 1854 at the age of 10 with her Father Timothy, Mother Catherine, her 3 sisters and 2 brothers..
Daniel was a Police Constable in Drayton, at the time of his marriage, and was responsible for the Police Lockup for some years, where he and Anne lived.
In spite of his at least 2 years of service in the new Queensland Police Force, no official records exist for him as a Constable in the Queensland Police Archives.  This is most likely attributed to the new State of Queensland only having come into being in 1859 and New South Wales police were transitioned to the new Force and record keeping especially in country areas may have been remiss.
There is no doubt that he was in the Police Force because he was mentioned several times in the Darling Downs newspapers and the Inquest into his death which is on Public Record attests to his occupation as does his Marriage Certificate and Death Certificate.
He had one son Kerry John Copley born 15^th January 1863 at the time of his death and Anne was expecting their 2^nd son Daniel O’Connor Copley who was born on the 14^Th August 4 months later.

The nature of his death caused much consternation in Drayton because he was found drowned in the bottom of a public well located between the Royal Bull’s Head Hotel and the Police Lockup.  A path he often took even on the darkest of nights. The well was fenced off and a Post was located in front of it.  His fellow police officers doubted that he accidentally fell into the well.
The Inquest into his death revealed that he had been at The Royal Bull’s Head Hotel on Thursday the 17^th March, St Patrick’s Day, checking on his rounds and had returned late that night for a few drinks.
All witnesses save one, reported him as being sober when he left around 2 AM on the morning of the 18^th.  His character was considered to be of a sober nature and there were no adverse reports as to his expertise or character.
However two men who frequented the Royal Bull’s Head had made threats to his life in the week leading up to his death. John Ryan had been arrested and placed in the Lockup the previous week had threatened revenge. Samuel Mann who Daniel had served a Summons on the previous week also threatened revenge.  One witness testified that Ryan and Mann had threatened to put Copley down the well.  This was repeated several times by other witnesses, but the movement of both men on the morning of the 18^th could not put them in the vicinity of the well. Ryan had been reportedly away for several days and Mann was drunk and asleep supposedly in the parlour of the Royal Bull’s Head.
Another fact that implied foul play was Daniel’s white police hat  which he had been wearing was not found at or in the well.
Ryan was never called to state where he was on the morning of the 18^th nor was Mann.
The Coroner returned an Open Verdict.

The people of Drayton rallied to support Anne and her son by opening a “Subscription List” where a respectable amount was raised.  The family didn’t believe that this was an accident and Pierce Copley his brother offered a reward of 100 pound, a not insignificant amount in 1864,  for information that would lead to the discovery orf the party or parties who threw him into the well.  This offer of a reward was reported in the Darling Downs Gazette.

The Darling Downs Gazette reported on the 31^st March as follows:

“THE LATE INQUESTS IN DRAYTON.

The result of the inquiry as to the cause of the late melancholy accident — for accident we sincerely trust that it was— by which Daniel Gould Copley came to his death, on the morning of the 18th, are of a very unsatisfactory nature, whether as regards the relatives of the deceased, the parties whose names have been implicated in the transaction, or the public generally.
To the relatives and friends of the unfortunate deceased the result of the enquiry is to be regretted, as adding to the affliction of losing a relation and friend in such an untimely manner, the dreadful idea that this loss has been entailed by wanton and diabolical malice, and that their lost friend has been hurried, in early life and the fullness of health and strength, to the grave, by the hands of a murderer.”

Daniel was buried in the Toowoomba Drayton Cemetery on the 19^th March 1864 unfortunately the family have not been able to locate his final resting place.  He would have been on of the first internments in Drayton since the cemetery was first opened in 1864.

His widow Anne married Jeremiah Cosgrove in 1868 in Brisbane and then on his death in 1869 married Thomas Harrison in Townsville in 1870, by whom she had 3 other children, Ellen, James and Michael.  Anne deceased on 1^st October 1885 and is buried in Cairns.

The Copley family especially Pierce Gould’s offspring have had a profound influence in Queensland Judiciary over the past 100 years with the current Queensland Defence Barrister Michael Copley SC and  Kerry Copley Barrister being direct descendants.

APPENDIX

TOOWOOMBA, THURSDAY, MARCH 31           1864

“FERIO— TEGO,”

THE LATE INQUESTS IN DRAYTON.

The result of the inquiry as to the cause of the late melancholy accident — for accident we sincerely trust that it was— by which Daniel Gould Copley came to his death, on the morning of the 18th, are of a very unsatisfactory nature, whether as regards the relatives of the deceased, the parties whose names have been implicated in the transaction, or the public generally.

To the relatives and friends of the unfortunate deceased the result of the enquiry is to be regretted, as adding to the affliction of losing a relation and friend in such an untimely manner, the dreadful idea that this loss has been entailed by wanton and diabolical malice, and that their lost friend has been hurried, in early life and the fullness of health and strength, to the grave, by the hands of a murderer.

As regards the parties whose names have been implicated in the transaction, the result is equally unfortunate for them— for, although nothing has been alleged against them, save an idle and probably meaningless threat, the proof of which, moreover, rests upon the statement of the witness Mullens, who in giving his evidence contradicted himself more than once, and whose assertions are to be looked upon with great suspicion from the way which he was in at the time the unfortunate circumstance occurred — there can be no doubt but that the very foot of such a suspicion having been once aroused, will be at all times seized hold of as a ready weapon of offence by the malicious and thoughtless. We do not mean, in making these remarks, in any way to reflect upon the verdict of the Jury — such verdict being the only one they could liave returned from the evidence laid before them, but we think that, under all the circumstances of the case, some remarks thereon are called for, as the parties who have' been brought under suspicion have no means of defending themselves, and are, in fact, in a worse position, than had they been placed on their trial before a Jury whose verdict would have settled the matter.
The evidence against Mann is of the very slightest kind, and, apart from the threat said to have been made use of, is not worth a single farthing. As regards Ryan, there is not the least evidence tending to implicate him in the matter, save the threat which be is said to have made use of in the hearing of the same witness who heard Mann's threat, andwho, had not his conduct been fairly attributable to his mental faculties being at that time unhinged from excessive drinking, might have been with as much reason suspected as either of the other parties. It may not have come within the province of the Coroner to call upon Ryan to show where he was during the night when the unfortunate occurrence happened, but could such a course have been adopted it might have tended to dissipate any suspicion which existed ; and it might be advisable for the party in question, for his own sake, still to cone forward and prove where he was on the night in question.
 Allowing that threats were made use of, we do not think too much weight ought to be attached to them by public opinion, as nothing is more common than to bear men of a certain class, upon the occasion of some real or fancied grievance, utter the most sanguinary threats against each other, with no more idea of putting them into execution than of going to Jericho.

As regards Mann we repeat that the weight of evidence goes clearly to prove that he never left the Royal Bull's Head that night, and as to Ryan he was never seen at all, and we suppose can have little or no difficulty in accounting for himself during the night of the 17th.

Provincial News          Toowoomba
(From our own Correspondent)

I regret to state that the most melancholy event occurred in Drayton on Patrick’s night. It appears Constable Copley who is in charge of the lock-up there, had been out spending the evening, but as he had not returned home that night, a search was initiated next morning, which was carried on all day without success, till on Saturday morning one of the public wells was dragged, and sad to relate the unfortunate man was found drowned.
A post-mortem examination took place before the coroner and Dr. Burke, who examined the body, gave in evidence that he died by drowning. Owing to some expressions of parties in the town, which caused suspicion to rest upon an Individual, the verdict of the jury was not recorded on Saturday, as the authorities wished to sift the matter deeper, for Constable Copley bore a high character for temperance and nothing was elicited in evidence to prove that he had been drunk.  The path to the place where the deceased resided was past this well, but Copley having gone this way some years even on the darkest night, it is hardly possible he could miss his way.
The well is fenced in save at the entrance, which is guarded by a post.  The body was buried on Sunday, and attended by the police force of the district.  Copley leaves a wife and child to mourn their loss.
Soon as the final verdict and examination closes I shall inform you more particularly. The occurrence has caused much excitement in Drayton.

The Darling Downs Gazette March 31

Coroners Inquest

The following is a condensed report of the evidence given on the occasion of the inquest held on the remains of the late Mr. Daniel Gould Copley, of the Drayton Police Force, whose body was found in a public well on Saturday, the 19^th instant.

Charles Wheeler – Identifies body as that of Daniel Copley: I saw him last alive on Friday morning at 2 o’clock: on the day before, being St. Patrick’s Day the deceased came several times to the Royal Bull’s Head Hotel, where I reside as bookkeeper: he called several times during the day, and spent the evening, and, as far as I can remember, he came around 9 in the evening and remained until 2 the next morning; I have not heard any person remarking that deceased was put by force into the well – what I did hear was only a surmise that the deceased might have been put down the well: when deceased left at 2 a.m. he appeared in good health, and did not appear the worse for liquor; I did not take notice which way he went: I do not remember what persons were at the place before and at the time the deceased left.

In answer to a juror, witness stated that Samuel Mann and another constable were in company with the deceased on St. Patrick’s night – Mr. Horton and some strangers were present; it is possible that some person might have been there without my seeing him; I last saw deceased previously to closing the house: when I saw the house closed up that morning some person might have remained there in the room where I saw deceased last: I did not hear any quarrel between Constable Copley and any other person up to the time when I last saw him: it is possible that such a thing might have happened unknown to me: I went up to bed about half past 2 on Friday; when I awoke I opened the bar door, I think: all the other doors were closed, I believe: I book every morning from the slate; I do not think Samuel Mann was in the house until 10: I had no conversation with him on the subject of the deceased being missing; Mann might have been in the house without my seeing it.

John White, Constable in Drayton Police identified body – I knew the late Daniel Copley, when alive he was in the same force as I am – the last I saw him alive was on the 17^th instant – I found his body in the well on the 19^th – there is a path, on each side of the well leading to Copley’s residence – I was ordered by police authorities to search the well –I saw no marks of injury on the body – it was fully dressed with the exception of the hat – Copley was in good health the last time I saw him and perfectly sober – when I parted with deceased at Horton’s it was about 1 in the morning – deceased asked me to go home and stay with him as the streets were muddy, I declined – deceased was in the habit of asking me to his house – I left deceased in company with a Mr. Walker from Felton, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Horton and Samuel Mann – I had a conversation with Samuel Mann about six weeks ago – we conversed about constable – Mann said ‘I do not care much about Copley’. There is a gate in the fence round the well – the footpath leading to Copley’s is abreast of the gate – I never heard directly any threats made use of against Copley – I never heard from any third person that such threats had been used – when I last saw Copley he was perfectly able to take care of himself – I never saw him drunk.  In answer to a question by a juror, witness said the night was unusually dark. Deceased had resided nearly two years in the lockup – the well is about halfway from the main road to where deceased lived – he was not likely to make a mistake – the road was not very slippery at that time – I have seen deceased go home on a darker night and pass the same well.

By a juror: The hat was a white felt hat – it has not yet been found – it would float unless some weight were put in it to sink it – deceased did not shout for nine glasses that day – when I was with him we had one glass of brandy and a bottle of ginger beer between us at Webb’s.

By Coroner: It was about one in the morning when I went home to bed – the next day I heard from Mrs. Copley that her husband had not been at home during the night – I went over to Horton’s and made enquires of Milverton and the barman – I saw Samuel Mann at Horton’s – it might have been about 10 o’clock when I saw him – the same morning Patrick Mullins came over to the court house – he appeared much agitated- he said, ‘surely nothing could have happened to Copley.’ I said ‘ I cannot see how anything could have happened to him.’ Mullins replied ‘ I only wish not.’ As I knew deceased would be wanted at court, I again went in search of him – it struck me as possible he might be in the well and I let the bucket down but could not find anything – I saw marks of mud apparently footstep on the boards which go across part of the well. When I asked Samuel Mann if he knew anything of deceased: he replied that he (Mann) had slept on the sofa at Horton’s all night and had not seen anything of him.

Dr. Burke deposed, as to the condition of the body which he had examined, there was a slight mark on the left shin, and one round the neck, most probably caused by the neck cloth there was no mark of any death struggle; death was caused by drowning.

William James Milverton, barman at Horton’s Hotel – I knew the deceased, Daniel Copley – I saw him last alive about half past one on Friday morning last – I cannot say how many glasses deceased had between 8 p.m. on Thursday and half past one on Friday morning – deceased was the worst of liquor – I saw him in company with Walker, Mullins and Mann – Mann slept on the sofa all night – I did not see John Ryan that night – I cannot say who left the house with deceased – Mann was asleep on sofa when deceased left – Mann was not sober, he slept on the sofa in the bar parlor – I was during the night about the bar and parlor – I did not hear any conversation between Mann and deceased – deceased had no quarrel with any one during the night – I must have heard it if he had – Mann might have left after Copley and returned without my knowledge – Mann did not usually sleep in the house, he may have done so once before within the last twelve months – it is about half a mile from the hotel to Mann’s house – I know John Ryan, I did not see him during the day or night in question – I saw him three or four days before – I recollect deceased taking Ryan to the lockup – the Police Magistrate was called in at that time as resistance was offered – I have heard no threats against deceased since that time from Ryan or any other person.

By Juror – My reason for supposing Copley was drunk when he left that morning was because I had served him with a quantity of liquor – I did not see him drink the liquor I served him – I saw him stagger – I heard no insulting language – I did not see Ryan and Mann together that night – next morning Mann was in the bar parlor – deceased in six or seven glasses twice – I booked them to him –(the book been produced it was found the deceased had been charged with glasses to the amount of 6s 6d.)

By the Coroner – it is usual to supply constables with any quantity of liquor the call for.

By a Juror – Mann was on the sofa drunk when Copley left- I covered him with a blanket – no person could have left the house without my knowledge – ten minutes after I went to bed, which was half an hour after deceased left – deceased could have got home in half an hour if sober.

By Coroner – Walker went away about ten minutes before deceased – I assisted him out – when I came back Mann, deceased, a man name of McGinnis from Talgai, and I think Mullins, were in the room – I assisted McGinnis to bed about quarter past one – when I came back I saw Mann and deceased in the room – deceased went away – I saw McGinnis next morning – I had no conversation with him about deceased – McGinnis could not have left his room without its been known.

Mitchell Marshall (Constable) identifies body – on Saturday last I saw Patrick Mullins and a man whose name I do not know, but whom I could recognize, fighting in Horton’s yards – Mullins was drunk and excited – he said, ‘I do not allow any Tipparary men interfere with me – your friend Ryan has done at last what he threatened’, or words to that effect – deceased’s name was brought into connection with the threat mentioned – after separating the men I reported the matter to Sub Inspector Murphy, and in obedience to his orders went to Mullins house, where I saw him, his wife, Mr. Wheeler, and a woman named O’Donald was in the house, and in their presence he said that he had about a week ago heard Ryan and Mann threaten that they would put deceased into the well, and that they had done it as last, and added, ‘You know it well enough, Wheeler.’  I reported what I had heard to Mr. Murphy – on Saturday night I saw Mullins over at Horton’s – Mullins asked me if I had said (Mullens) had said he heard Ryan and Mann threaten to put Copley down the well – I said I Had- he replied ‘By Gor ! I’ll prove it’.  I considered Mullins sober at the time.

William Horton deposed that deceased was sober – that Mann remained in the parlor after deceased left – that he had not seen Ryan during the day in question, and not certain whether Mullins left before or with deceased.

Patrick Mullins was then called – the first part of the witness evidence was either unimportant or simply corroborative of other evidence as to what had taken place during the day and evening in question, and testifying that deceased was sober when he last saw him. This witness then went on to say: I never knew of deceased having any quarrel with anyone, save with John Ryan, when he (deceased) took him to the lock up – at that time Ryan threatened revenge – deceased served a summons upon Mann – Mann said he would have revenge out of him – I do not remember hearing any one threaten to put deceased down the well – if I said so I was drunk, and do not remember it – I saw the Police Magistrate and Sub-Inspector Murphy at my house on Saturday afternoon – I was getting all right then I took no more spirits after seeing them and did not go back to Horton’s that night, and did not accuse any one of throwing deceased into the well – I had a quarrel with a man named Green on Saturday about dinner time.

By a Juror – My wife gave me a glass of brandy about half an hour after Mr. Rawlins and Mr. Murphy left – I call evening after four o’clock

A Juror here asked the witness if he (witness) accused anyone on Saturday evening of throwing Copley down the well. Witness declined to answer this question, and was committed for contempt of court, but afterwards resworn, when he deposed that he had not seen deceased at his (witness’) house after he left Horton’s. Witness was discharged with a caution.

Edward Ryan – This witness had nothing to say in this matter, save that coming from Toowoomba on Friday morning at 2 o’clock he saw lights in the Royal Bull’s Head, and that everything seemed quite.

William Rowling (carrier) deposed – I know a man named William Jeffries – I heard of deceased’s death – I had a conversation with Jefferies last Saturday at dinner time – speaking of deceased’s death Jeffries told me that Samuel Mann told him that he (Mann) and John Ryan intended to throw deceased down the well within a week – this was told on week before deceased met with his fate, and Jefferies then added, and now the week is expired –the conversation was in Horton’s taproom – no other person was present – I told Jeffries to say nothing about it unless he had some proof – Jeffries agreed to this – I repeated the conversation in Webb’s , I do not know to whom, I believe to Mr. Webb – I have no doubt on my own mind but that the conversation was exactly as I have said.

William Jeffries deposition put a different face upon the matter. In Mr. Handcock’s store he heard Mann say that he (Mann) was accused of putting deceased down the well – this was past four o’clock on Saturday, and he saw Rowling between 4 and 5 and told him Mann and Ryan were accused of putting deceased down the well. This conversation took place upon the matter – Mann had said someone else had told him deceased would drown in the well within a week, and that the week was now expired.  The last mentioned conversation took place in Handcock’s store. (It may be as well to state that neither Mr. Handcock nor another person, stated to be in the store at that time, heard any such conversation.)

The Coroner addressed the Jury, commenting on the evidence.

The Jury returned the verdict as given last week.

Marriage Register

Translation

1862 Marriages Solemnised in the District of Drayton in the Colony of Queensland Registered By: William Murphy

No.	When and where Married	Name and Surname of the Parties	Condition of the Parties (Bachelor or Spinster)	Birth Place	Rank or Profession	Ages	Usual place of Residence	Parents (Mothers Maiden Name)	Fathers Rank or Profession
134	12th June 1862 Toowoomba	Daniel Gould Copley Anne McMahon	Bachelor Spinster	Kanturk Cork Ireland Buru Co Clare Ireland	Police Constable Domestic Servant	25 19	Drayton Drayton	Ellen Nolene O’Connell Catherine McMahon Formerly Hogan	Richard Gould Copley Gentleman Timothy McMahon Carpenter

Married In: St Luke’s Church at Toowoomba. The consent of Catherine McMahon Mother of Annie McMahon was given to the blessing of the said Annie McMahon with Daniel Gould Copley, the said Annie McMahon being under the age of twenty one years.

According to:  the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England                Vincent L Rawlson Minister

In the Presence of us John C Lyddy

                                       Patrick Burke

By Me Vincent L Rawsome  Officiating Minister

In view of the fact that I was involved in this change to a minor degree and that the late former Superintendent Bob Matheson made the translation, I thought I would comment on this and a few other matters concerning our uniforms. The main reason for the change was that most Queensland police officers who wore this patch did not know what CONSTANTIA AC COMITATE was in English - that is FIRMNESS WITH COURTESY.

With the help of Mr Allan Baker, an avid collector of army and police uniforms who now lives in Childers, I will trace the uniforms through and hopefully this will cover those worn by all of our members.

To 1960 when I was sworn in city police had a navy blue uniform with a dark grey long sleeved shirt, and I think, a black tie. The trousers had a dark blue stripe down each side. The cap badge and belt buckle were the only items that bore any identification; that is 'Queensland Police', although all officers had a number that they wore on the shoulder of their shirt in summer, or tunic in winter. It was coat on for winter and coat off for summer.

Country police had a khaki type shirt, coat and trousers and again no markings except on the belt buckle and cap badge. I was one of the first to be issued with collared shirts because I recall getting two of these and two without collars with a handful of detachable collars. Those who served prior to 1960 will remember the collarless shirts and detachable collars. Probably their wives will remember them more clearly.

About 1965 to 1975: Moved to drab olive uniform and khaki shirts with brown ties. Again coat on or off for summer-winter but on the tunics the numbers were moved to the lapels while they stayed on the shoulder of shirts for summer. There was no patch, and from recollection, we changed the belt buckle over from a black to a brown belt while the cap badge altered. I think it was this cap badge that later was the basis for the ‘pineapples’ which appeared on our car doors.

1975–1984: The uniform reverted to navy blue with a light blue shirt and dark blue tie. The identifying numbers on the uniform disappeared and were replaced with a number on the cap badge for all constables and one with 'sergeant' on it for that rank. This uniform was the first to have an identifying patch which contained the words ‘QUEENSLAND POLICE’ and our motto, CONSTANTIA AC COMITATE. Later, short-sleeved shirts were introduced and a shirt designed to be worn without a tie was added to the collection. Several versions of the patch were generated in this time and these were mainly to clarify the words on it.

1984–1985: Allan tells me that in this period the motto on the patch was eliminated while the words ‘QUEENSLAND POLICE’ remained.

1985–1991: The size of the patch was increased and the motto was included in English; that is FIRMNESS WITH COURTESY. There were many versions of this patch so much so that former Senior Sergeant Ross Huth, who was then in the Depot Store, acquired the nick-name, ‘Patch’ through his many visits to the Commissioner’s Office seeking approval for the alterations made mainly for clarity purposes.

1989: It was either late in 1989 following the release of Fitzgerald’s findings or early in 1990, that name tags were introduced for all uniformed personnel. This move was also accompanied by all commissioned officers holding uniformed positions actually wearing uniform. As many will recall, until this time commissioned officers outside Brisbane rarely wore uniforms and those above Superintendent in Brisbane also dusted theirs off mainly for induction ceremonies only.

1991: the badge and patch were changed and the new motto—WITH HONOUR WE SERVE—was included. This major change resulted from a competition conducted by then-Commissioner Noel Newnham and criticism during the Commission of Inquiry that the motto FIRMNESS WITH COURTESY was inappropriate for the Queensland Police Force as it was then called. As I indicated earlier, it was Bob Matheson’s knowledge of Latin that provided the translation.

By the way, I think that New South Wales still has its motto in Latin on its patch. I wonder how many of its officers know what it means in English.

Since retiring in 1999 I have seen many changes to the uniform of Queensland Police Officers.  Hopefully one day someone else will update this article.

From a recent read of Jack Herbert’s book it appears that allegations were made during the Commission of Inquiry about a couple of police officers getting a bit of a start before examinations being conducted.  Initially I was told by someone who had read or heard of some things in the book that I had been involved in this malpractice. I was mystified at this suggestion because of my track record of involvement with examinations and quickly bought the book.

I was pleased to find no reference of any involvement of myself with police examinations but merely that Jack had forgotten his telephone list when he hurried off to London and had to go through me to speak with his contact here.

My involvement with the examinations was from 1960 to 1971, and during that time I was responsible for their administration which involved arranging for their supervision throughout the state. The question papers for the five examinations were always set by the Inspector in charge of the Legal Section/Administration Branch and in my days they were Palethorpe, Low and Germain. They used to do all of their work on the papers at their residences and I used to cut stencils containing the question papers on a Saturday morning.

Part of the stencil-cutting process involved checking the titles of Acts, references to various sections and references to the Queensland Policeman’s Manual to make sure that answers to the questions existed. On another Saturday morning nearer to the examination dates I used to run the questions off in the gestetner room at the Commissioner’s Office after being escorted to and from the room by the Inspector. The papers were kept in the strong room of the Legal Section and the Inspector was the only person who had a key to this room.

Still closer to the examination dates sufficient copies were placed in special envelopes with spares being allowed for the larger centres. The envelopes were sealed by means of wax which was melted by an electric soldering iron which was ‘borrowed’ from the Radio and Electronics Section. The seal contained the words ‘Queensland Police Force’ and was always used by the Inspector who made sure that at least five perfect seals were put on each envelope.

The envelopes were sent out by registered post and by name to the various supervisors throughout the state, kept in a safe place and on the morning/afternoon of the two examinations were to be opened in front of the candidate/s after first showing the intact seals. I am confident that some former Queensland police officers who may read this article will recall the late Sergeant Tom Molloy parading around the Lang Park Police Youth Club showing the seals on the unopened envelope.

It was common for a Constable to sit under the supervision of his or her Sergeant and also in a small centre, where there was no police officer superior to the Constable or Sergeant, for the Constable to sit under the supervision of the local head teacher. (Permission for this to be done was always obtained from the Education Department.)

Before the arrival of Commissioner Ray Whitrod in the latter part of 1969, I had never heard of any malpractice in connection with the supervision of examinations in this state. Probably I would be the last to be told anyway but I suggest now that some readers may have heard of some members getting a start or hints from supervisors, particularly in country areas.

Why I mentioned Mr Whitrod is that he, no doubt because he had been told of some alleged malpractice, decided that in future all candidates had to sit at district headquarters stations under the supervision of independent Inspectors sent from Brisbane or nearby centres.

It is known that some district officers were peeved at this action. Also it is known that several Inspectors took advantage of being able to get a trip out of Brisbane and regularly put in their bids to go to centres long before the examinations were held.

Before the introduction of independent supervisors who usually brought the answer papers back with them to Brisbane, the answer papers were sent to the Commissioner’s Office by registered mail and when they were all received, they then went off to the Commissioner’s Inspector for marking purposes. Two names which come to mind are Mr Harry Reinke and Mr Allan Duncan who used to spend several weeks marking papers so that the results could be dispatched the day they were received from the Inspector.

During my time on the examinations I had two propositions put to me. One was a large sum of money by a Constable in exchange for some start on his examination and the other was from a very senior officer for assistance for two of his members who had been away on investigations which meant that they could not study. Both propositions were declined and I informed my Inspector about them.

I have no trouble in saying that no-one ever got any start from me—not even the name of an Act to study—and that could be said about my late brother-in-law who just scraped in to qualify for Constable first class but who was killed in a police vehicle accident before he could put up his stripe.

In case someone is wondering how I sat for examinations during my involvement with them, I mention that I still did all of the administrative tasks but was then relieved of any involvement in cutting the stencils, running off the question papers, and the like.

Unfortunately during or just after the Commission of Inquiry, the examination system as we then knew it, went out—just like the height-weight ratio for recruits—along with the bath water.

While it was not a perfect system, it forced those who wanted to advance to study and through that develop as police officers. I have heard it said that by cutting out the examination system some de-skilling occurred.

What I remember most must be the introduction of a typed Record of Interview.  Until 1962 a witness was not permitted to refer to notes except in a very brief way and certainly they could not read from notes. During this time I had a case with a Victorian Detective Eddie SNELL and we interviewed a fellow who was wanted for fraud in Victoria and Eddie interviewed him and had me type out the Record of Interview.  I thought that wasvery good idea. It took a lot of pressure off you as a witness, not having to memorise  things.

At that stage you had to memorise your evidence and if you were not word perfect then the defence would suggest that it was false. If you were perfect they would suggest it was unnatural and must be  perjury. You were in a no win situation.

So, when I was in the Valley CI Branch I had a case of fellows who’d raped or attempted to rape a sixteen year old girl.  We rounded up five men early in the piece.  I just knew that memorising five lots of evidence of interview and evidence of confrontation of the victim would be a most difficult task so I was determined to do it by way of type-written records of interview.  And we did that.  Some records were signed; some were not signed.  We got them through the committal proceedings OK.  I was able to read the records before Mr McKenna, the Stipendiary Magistrate. I got away with it there because they didn’t have any defence lawyers with them. 

Then it came to trial. As was the custom you had to confer with  Mr Lloyd MARTIN, the Chief Crown Prosecutor, before the trial. I went over to him and discussed it and he directed that I had to give the evidence in the usual way.  That is from memory.  I protested that in the circumstances I should be allowed to refer to or even read the records of interview.  And he said “Well that’s not for you to decide, it’s for the judge and I suggest you memorise it”.  But I was quite determined to go ahead and read the Records of Interview but I was worried, I must confess.

I rang the union and told them what I intended to do and asked if they would support me if I went through with it.  And they said yes they would.  The first case of rape was a single trial for a fellow named CLARKE and I remember it well because the Police got to know what I was going to do and the gallery was full of Detectives wondering how I was going to turn out.  And so I got in the box and Lloyd MARTIN took me through the preamble and told me to go ahead and I gave a couple of paragraphs from memory and then outlined the method by which I obtained the written Records of Interview and I asked the judge if I could read from those Records of Interview.

Immediately Mr Eddie Broad, Barrister for the defence, got to his feet and protested in the loudest tone that this was not the way of doing things and by this time Mr MARTIN supported me and made submissions that I should be able to.  So this great argument went on for about a quarter of an hour and I’m in the box and I can recall I was so tensed up I could feel the perspiration running down my spine as I wondered what would happen.  It wasn’t beyond the realms of possibility the judge might cite me for contempt and I could end up in a cell with the prisoner.

After argument Mr Justice STANLEY, who had one eye (he could see more out of one eye than most people could see out of two – a great old Judge), didn’t rule.  He just said “Carry on, witness”.  And, so I carried on. I had another paragraph up my sleeve so I gave it and stopped.  Judge Stanley looked at me sternly and said ‘Surely the witness has independent recollection of further conversation with the accused’ and I said “I’m sorry your Honour, I cannot vouch for the accuracy  of my evidence without reading from the record”.  This was crunch time.  It was really crunch time.  There was a long pregnant pause and Judge STANLEY said “Then the witness will have to read from the record, won’t he?” And so I was able to read from the record and that was the start.

This system was quickly adopted throughout the State.  In fact the five men were convicted in separate trials because of the Records of Interview and that was quickly taken up as the way to record interviews.  This took a lot of strain off Police Officers in the manner in which they had to give their evidence.

EARLY:                         Must have been an enormous gain for you, but also for the working Police Officer?

BRAITHWAITE:           It was but today that system has been replaced by the  development of technology, the recorded interviews and television cameras and all that sort of thing. It mightn’t seem like much now to look back that somebody started the contemporaneously typed Record of Interview but at that time it was very, very important in the investigation of criminal cases.

EARLY:                         What year was that roughly, Don?

BRAITHWAITE:           That was 1963, ’63-’64.

EARLY:                         Yes, because as you say before that Detectives used to have to learn the evidence.

BRAITHWAITE:           Memorise it.

EARLY:                         Memorise it.

BRAITHWAITE:           I recall once this fellow set fire to a hotel and burnt to death two people and Buck BUCHANAN, who was the leading investigator of the day, had to recall ninety-four pages of evidence.  He was a fantastic officer but he took a week to memorise those ninety-four pages.

EARLY:                         And the term, contemporaneously made notes, that still applies today in any organisation but you can’t beat notes made at the time or very soon afterwards and this developed from the signed Record of Interview.  You indicated that some of these were signed and some unsigned but there’s been lots of argument over the years about the veracity of particularly unsigned Records of Interview, but I think that every working Detective from 1964 onwards really should have tipped their hat to you because it was certainly a gain for Detectives and working Police.

In my visits to police stations throughout the state with a former Commissioner—and later as regional superintendent in charge of the North Coast Police Region—I became aware of the role which the wives of officers, particularly at one and two person stations, played in policing the divisions to which their husbands had been allocated.

Recently, when looking through my press cutting books, I came across a large article and editorial that appeared on page two of the Gympie Times of 8 September 1988. A large photograph of Ms Sheree Loane, wife of then Senior Constable Chris Loane who was then attached to Imbil Station, and some comments by her appear in this article.

The editorial reads:

Wives of police officers staffing one and two man stations have a sound argument in seeking acknowledgement of their role as unpaid members of the Queensland Police Force. They have began a campaign to have recognized in a meaningful way their contribution to the staffing of these stations. Claims have been made for the wives to be financially rewarded for the vital role they play as unofficial receptionists, and sometimes stand in police officers, at police stations which on many occasions would otherwise be un-staffed. Wives of police officers are not usually Queensland Police Force members and therefore should not ordinarily be expected to perform the duties of a police officer. However, this is what they are indeed expected to do when their husbands are assigned to these small police stations. Apart from answering calls, whether they be by telephone or in person, which police officers would regard as routine, they continually face the likelihood of having to deal with a matter of serious consequence; or even horrific consequence. Monetary compensation for their efforts will not alleviate the potential unpleasantness of their role, nor allow them to live an uninterrupted life in the way of wives of men in other occupations. There is merit, however, in suggestions that because they are in fact unofficial staff of a vital community service, often in isolated circumstances, that their role should be rewarded. It would seem money is the only possible reward for their efforts.

Some comments contained in the article by Sheree Loane, Lanie Robertson—wife of Craig who was then officer in charge at Kilkivan—and Chris Howie—wife of Sergeant John Howie who was then the officer in charge of Tin Can Bay Station—follow:

·         We often have to help distressed people, take phone calls about accidents and relay information to our husbands.

·         We get calls at all hours of the night and sometimes it is a bit nerve-racking to get a call at midnight when your husband is out on a job.

·         Police wives duties often interfered with the routine of their families.

·         Most wives accept these duties as part of being a police wife.

·         I have to put up with many interruptions to my family’s routine because of answering the phone, handling inquiries or giving advice.

·         I accept being an honorary unpaid assistant to the police force as part of my job as a police officer’s wife.

• I’ve often received emergency calls and I think it is good that at least there is someone here with a little bit of knowledge who can assist, contact my husband or redirect the call.

I indicated in the article that an allowance should be paid to the QPS’s 'unpaid heroes'; also that the community expected to be able to contact its police officer at all times and at small stations were generally only able to do so through the police wives’ dedicated efforts.

When Mr Jim O’Sullivan became Commander and later Assistant Commissioner in charge of the North Coast Police Region, I was able to indicate to him regularly what the police wives were doing on behalf of the 'Service' as it had then became known. Naturally I continued harping to him about getting some allowance for them. But not much happened until Jim became Commissioner when I was able to convince him that he should do something which he soon did administratively.

Spouse payments are covered in the Human Resources Management Manual and are paid quarterly to spouses of officers serving at one and two officer stations and police beats. The spouse of an officer at a one officer station presently receives $300 per quarter while spouses of officers at a two officer station receive $150 each. (Hopefully in late 2016 this situation still exists). 

Back when officers were retiring at sixty-years-of-age, it was customary for each retiree to be invited to an induction parade and in the case of males for him to receive a plaque and for his wife to be given a compact. The latter showed some recognition of the support given to the officer by his wife. But with optional retirement at fifty-five-years, making for large numbers of retirements, the practice lapsed.

I have officiated at many send-offs for police officers and if the wives of the officers were present I always made a point of thanking them on behalf of the QPS for their support of their husband in his various postings around the State. I distinctly recall mentioning at former Senior Sergeant Jim Scanlan’s send-off that once while he was away on patrol in the Coen division his wife, Marion, was pestered by a couple of Jim’s regulars to lock them up which she did until Jim’s return.

Some of our readers may not have heard of the spouse payment or its background and that is mainly why I have put these words together with the aid of the newspaper cutting referred to already.

One morning in recent years near where I live in Brisbane, I noticed a helicopter circling for some time. I presumed its occupants were looking for something on the ground. I immediately thought that police vehicles may be involved and if they were the occupants of the helicopter would not be able to give accurate directions to the police officers in those vehicles. Why is this so?

Soon after being transferred to Gympie in February 1988 as the Regional Superintendent of the North Coast Region, I became aware of the sterling service given to the community by the Sunshine Coast Helicopter Rescue Service which was based at Maroochy Airport.  Major Jim Campbell was then the chief pilot of its one helicopter. (Mr Des Scanlan, a long-time supporter of the police service, was the part-owner of the helicopter service and Jim later became the chief executive officer. He retired in recent years and at that time I believe they had three helicopters.)

When police officers wanted to use this service, the activation of the helicopter had to be authorised by a commissioned officer. Inspectors Des Melksham and Tony Olsen were the officers attached to the Sunshine Coast District. They used to make the authorisations but on a few occasions I gave them via the radio in my police vehicle.

Sterling service to the community is really an understatement. While many of their callouts were for medivacs, a lot of them were to assist police in searches, in gaining access to rugged country, during floods in Gympie and district, and so on. Great liaison existed with the Nambour General Hospital and all police officers in the region. I believe that situation still exists today and I recently saw on television, a helicopter—probably one from the service mentioned—putting down on the Bruce Highway north of Caboolture, to convey an injured motorist to hospital.

In 1988 or 1989, Jim suggested to me that the 'Police Force' as it was then called, should consider placing numbers on the hoods of operational vehicles. His reasoning—which I can recall distinctly—was that often they had located a wanted person say in bush and if there were more than one police vehicle nearby they could not indicate to the police vehicles where the wanted person was located in relation to the police vehicles.

As a result of a submission I made to a Regional Superintendents Conference, numbers were placed on the hoods of Metropolitan North Region’s traffic vehicles. I can recall at a subsequent conference the result of the trial being discussed. Some leeching and/or damage of the paintwork was indicated and as a result of few, if any, other regional superintendents having access to helicopters at that time little support was given to a continuance of my suggestion.

To my knowledge nothing more was done about the idea until an incident came to my notice in December 1998 on probably the first or second day I had been in charge of the South Eastern Region. I was in my police vehicle going towards Coolangatta when I heard on the police radio about a chase of a wanted vehicle by two or three police vehicles. They were on the Gold Coast-Springbrook Road and the radio operator was having difficulty in advising the occupants of the police vehicles where the wanted vehicle was in relation to their cars.

Again, at the first opportunity, I raised the matter of the numbering of operational police vehicles at an appropriate conference. I distinctly recall that a further trial was to be conducted in the North Coast Region. I presume that the trial did not result in a decision being taken to number police vehicles because to this day – 26 December 2016 – there is no general numbering on the hoods of operational police vehicle.

I have used the word ‘general’ because I have seen a few police vehicles with numbers on the hoods on television and I understand that these have been associated with the operation of the police helicopter based on the Gold Coast. 

My recollection of my travels in all other states and territories is that most, if not all, operational vehicles I have seen have borne numbers on the hoods; also with letters associated with the numbers the region/district to which they belong is identifiable. 

With a second police helicopter operating in Brisbane these days, I believe their efficiency would be improved if all operational uniformed police vehicles bore numbers on the hood.

I also believe that advances have been made with stick on numbers and signs so much so that they can be removed without the paintwork being damaged in any way.

ADDENDUM:

The following information was received by me on 20 October 2018 from Assistant Commissioner Brian Wilkins, South Eastern Region, the Region based on Surfers Paradise and from which I retired on 23 January 1999:

Thought I would give you an  update on numbers on the top of police vehicles.  With the advances in technology and the roll out of the new GWN radio network, each vehicle is identified by number via the police radio within the vehicle. This radio number identifies what station the vehicle is from and the officers who are in the vehicle.  These particulars are viewed via an iPad which is carried by the majority of our first responders and also by our tactical flight officers within PolAir.  Therefore the officers in our helicopters are able to identify the vehicle ground crews via their iPads without the need for any numbers on the top of police vehicles.  So all seems good and no longer a need for numbers on the top of our police vehicles. 

If you retired before 5 January 1994, you would have received your pay by means of a not negotiable cheque which somehow you would have had to either cash or deposit at a bank. While researching and writing the history of the Queensland Police Credit Union, I came across many mentions of the disposition of pay cheques in the minutes of board meetings which were the main source of the information contained in the resulting history book. The following is extracted from Chapter 5 – Where and how our members have done business with us.

It was not until 5 January 1994 that the Queensland Police Service (the name changed to this from Queensland Police Force in 1989) did away with pay cheques and introduced electronic fund transfers to financial institutions that included whole-of-pay facilities.

Until then, members, if they were in Brisbane, could go to the Credit Union and cash their cheques on pay days (or late on the previous day with the guarantee by the Credit Union that they were not negotiated until the next day because if someone did that they would be subject to a departmental investigation).

In regard to whole-of-pay facilities, this was first mooted by the Credit Union on 20 April 1978 when it was resolved to write to the police department about the possibility of these facilities being included in its new computer program. Advice was received at the
11 May 1978 meeting that a representative of the police department had advised that such facilities had not been included and that there could be problems if this facility ever became compulsory, especially for country members.

It is significant that the Credit Union at about this time recognised the cheque cashing problem by opening the office at 7.30 am on the Wednesday of pay week. This practice remained in place until it was discontinued through lack of use due probably to the introduction by the QPS on 5 January 1994 of electronic fund transfers to financial institutions.

Until the electronic fund transfer facilities were introduced by the Police Force, which had to await a new computer system, alternatives for country and suburban members particularly would have been to find a friendly publican or business-person who would cash the cheque for them or otherwise put the cheque into a bank account and draw out the amount of money required. (Technically, a member should not have been able to draw against the amount of the cheque until it was cleared by the bank.)

The Credit Union, for example, did this because its board meeting of 24 October 1974 was advised that members had to deposit their pay cheques and then make sufficient withdrawals for their needs. It was resolved at that meeting that the manager be authorised to withdraw sufficient money every second Wednesday to cover the cashing of pay cheques for members only.

 

Much time (probably some, most or all of it the boss’) and effort were expended each fortnight in satisfying members’ desires with their ‘not negotiable’ pay cheques.

 

At one time at the Queensland Police College, Chelmer, staff members—by prior arrangement with the Salary Section at QPS Headquarters—used to have cheques payable to members sent to the college rather than their home station and on pay days a staff member would visit a nearby friendly bank and cash the cheques for members. This was welcomed by members, some of whom would be at Chelmer away from their country station for up to eight weeks.

 

During another period, a credit union staff member used to go to the police college and cash cheques. This practice may have been introduced to overcome the staff member going to a bank to cash cheques. Who knows, the relevant bank may have reneged on its previous unofficial arrangement.

The cashing of cheques by members was before the board on 4 November 1982, when it was resolved that management research the feasibility of country members who cashed their cheques only with other credit unions, being allowed to receive the total value of the cheque and not the $300 that was paid.

This matter was again discussed at the 2 December 1982 meeting. A motion that the full value of cheques be cashed was defeated but it was later resolved that members be permitted to cash their pay cheques to the value of $450 through agencies as from 1 January 1983.

It can be seen that the cheque cashing problem was able to be addressed through the limited number of agencies throughout the state and that many members would have had to resort to other means—some of which have been mentioned previously—to obtain some cash every second Wednesday (pay day for many years). That is why electronic fund transfer was a popular initiative by the QPS.

If a cheque was negotiated prior to the date thereon, this would upset Treasury officials who would request an investigation by usually an Inspector of the Police Force. 

Recently I was speaking to a senior official of the Main Roads Department and we were discussing how, in the old days, police officers searched out registration details of motor vehicles.  During business hours it was possible to ring the Main Roads Department and get the details of a registered vehicle. This would have included trunk line calls which would have been recorded in the relevant register but after hours contact was another story altogether.

I recalled distinctly to this Main Roads official that during my short period on the beat at Roma Street in 1960 the member on reserve duty, or a member who just 'blew' into the station, was often sent over to the Main Roads Department’s building, which was then on the corner of Turbot and Albert Streets (the current site of the Suncorp-Metway Building), with a registration number so that the details of the vehicle to which it was allocated could be obtained. This could have been as a result of a radio message from say Mt Isa, the police officers at which could have been waiting for these details to assist in an ongoing investigation.

Upon arriving at the Main Roads building, it was necessary to ‘knock up’ or ‘wake up’ the night watch-man. If you were successful in doing this and then at him finding the file, you could get the relevant information to give the radio operator so that he or she could then convey them to the Central Communications Centre for transmission by radio to the inquirer. This could have been done by morse code because I recall that means of contact still being in place at the time for some of our communications.

In contrast, in recent years prior to my retirement in 1999, the QPS had, by courtesy of the Department of Transport, the MINDA (mobile integrated network data access) which was a device capable of providing the registration details and information on the registered owner within about thirty seconds of entering the number into it.  (I understand that in 2016 the Minda devices have been withdrawn and replaced with more effective devices).

As Chairman of the Mobile Data Committee for several years, I was pleased to be associated with the Minda innovation which was always the plan of the committee to be the forerunner of mobile data.  This has materialized in effect in 2016 and with it the ability of police officers being able to check on a vehicle which they may be following is much superior  to the early days of the trip across the road to get those vital details if you could raise the night watch-man of course.