DPI: Misconduct by Authorised Vehicle Examiners - Corruption and ...

[11] In one instance a Vehicle Examiner developed a relationship with the
proprietor of a wrecking yard, panel shop and mechanical workshop which
evolved into an arrangement of payments for false certifications.
[12] The proprietor would routinely pass the vehicle details to the Vehicle
Examiner, who would then enter them into the DPI data system as
inspected and certified vehicles, and subsequently return the completed
paperwork to the proprietor (usually at the latter’s workshop). The
proprietor would then pay him $50 cash for each vehicle.
[13] This Vehicle Examiner was subsequently charged with 30 counts of
accepting bribes contrary to section 82 of The Criminal Code (WA). He
pleaded guilty, was convicted and on 6 August 2010 was sentenced to
imprisonment for three years, with 18 months to serve before eligibility for
parole.
[14] Other Vehicle Examiners who gave false certificates of examinations and
roadworthiness apparently did so out of a habit of giving preferential
treatment to individuals with whom they dealt regularly and who had
cultivated them. There was no evidence that they sought or received
benefits for doing so.
[15] In December 2009 the Commission notified DPI that it was of the opinion
certain named Vehicle Examiners had engaged in misconduct and
recommended that DPI consider disciplinary action against them.
[16] The Director General of DoT informed the Commission that DoT
recommenced its disciplinary process against the Vehicle Examiners on
10 December 2009, advising the Commission of the outcomes of that
process by letter on 4 August and 23 August 2010. The Director General
stated in his letters to the Commissioner:
A disciplinary investigation was conducted into the suspected breach
of discipline for each public officer [Vehicle Examiner]. The findings
of the Investigators [sic] Report concluded that the misconduct was
serious. [On 17 May 2010] the four officers were charged with a
breach of discipline … in accordance with the “Public Sector
Management Act 1994”. As a result of the four officers denying the
charge the matter was then referred to a disciplinary inquiry. On 1
June 2010, the four offices [sic] were advised that a disciplinary
inquiry was to be conducted into the alleged breach of discipline.
The disciplinary inquiry … [was subsequently] conducted and all four
Inquiry Reports [presented] … The Investigator concluded in his
Reports that the charge where each of the four officers committed a
breach of discipline [had] … been proven. 1
…
As a result of the four officers committing a breach of discipline, the
following action has been taken by the Department [DoT].
xii