Sergeant Reinstated After Drink-Driving Crash Overturned
A Victoria Police sergeant has been reinstated following a disciplinary review that overturned his dismissal after an on-duty drink-driving incident. The unnamed specialist officer was driving an unmarked police vehicle when he rear-ended another car in Berwick while under the influence of alcohol. Although the Police Registration and Services Board reversed the termination decision, the officer faces significant professional consequences, including permanent removal from his specialist unit and a mandatory financial contribution to Police Legacy.
The incident occurred shortly before 7:00 AM on 10 September 2025, during availability duty. A breath test administered at the scene returned a reading of 0.07, which exceeds Victoria’s general legal driving limit of 0.05. While police officers are held to a zero-alcohol standard for operational duties, the board determined that the original dismissal was too severe given the specific circumstances surrounding the officer’s mental health and workload at the time.
Officer Worked 68 Hours Following Fatal Shootings
The events leading to this outcome began with the tragic murders of Detective Leading Senior Constable Neal Thompson and Senior Constable Vadim de Waart-Hottart on 26 August 2025. The two officers were killed while serving a warrant for Dezi Freeman in Porepunkah. In the aftermath, the affected sergeant joined an intensive search operation to assist with the investigation.
Following the fatal shootings, the officer worked at least 68 hours over five consecutive days. This grueling schedule included one shift lasting 18 hours. The physical and psychological toll was evident; the officer struggled to sleep before and after attending the funeral of Detective Thompson, which took place two days prior to the collision on 10 September 2025.
On the morning of the crash, the officer admitted to consuming two strong bourbon and cokes approximately three hours earlier while attempting to rest. Despite firearms being secured inside the police vehicle at the time of the collision, the presence of weapons increased the gravity of the situation.
The officer subsequently appealed to the Police Registration and Services Board. In its decision reported on 10 September 2026, the board reversed the dismissal but imposed strict conditions. These included his permanent removal from the specialist unit where he had served for almost 20 years and a requirement to donate $2,500 to Police Legacy.
Board Rejects Dismissal Despite Zero-Alcohol Policy
The officer told the disciplinary board that he had consumed the alcohol while trying to sleep. He stated that he had accepted responsibility for his actions and had not attempted to shift blame. A superintendent from his former unit corroborated this, noting that the officer had taken ownership of the incident.
Victoria Police argued that the dismissal should have remained in place. The force maintained that an on-duty officer driving a police vehicle after drinking undermined public confidence and damaged the reputation of the organisation. They accepted that the officer had since obtained professional assistance but maintained that the conduct was serious enough to justify ending his employment.
The board, however, did not excuse the officer’s conduct or find that driving a police vehicle while affected by alcohol was acceptable. Instead, it concluded that dismissal was too severe because the original decision had not given sufficient weight to his diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, extreme fatigue and excessive workload. Psychological assessments and references from senior colleagues indicated that this behaviour was inconsistent with his previous service record.
The board found no sufficient evidence that the sergeant was suffering from alcohol addiction or an ongoing drinking problem. Nevertheless, it made clear that PTSD and exhaustion explained the circumstances but did not remove the officer’s responsibility for deciding to drink and drive. The immediate concern remains public safety, as members of the public reasonably expect police to meet at least the same road-safety standards they enforce against everyone else.
Case Balances High Standards With Trauma Support
This case highlights the complex tension between maintaining high standards of conduct and managing the severe psychological impacts of traumatic operations on officers. The officer had previously experienced trauma after fatally shooting an offender while performing his duties in 2024, adding to his history of service-related stress.
A workload of 68 hours over five days, including an 18-hour shift, creates obvious risks to decision-making, health and operational safety. The case does not establish that PTSD excuses drink-driving, but it does show the consequences of allowing a severely fatigued and traumatised officer to remain available for armed duty.
However, the board distinguished between criminal liability and internal disciplinary outcomes based on mitigating factors like mental health status.
The decision underscores that while the force cannot tolerate drink-driving, it also recognises the limits of punitive measures when underlying medical conditions are present. As of 10 September 2026, the sergeant had regained his employment but was permanently removed from his specialist unit, reassigned to training duties and ordered to make the $2,500 donation.
The incident serves as a reminder of the pressures faced by law enforcement personnel in high-stress environments. It also raises questions about how organisations balance the need for accountability with the duty of care owed to employees suffering from recognised psychological injuries. The outcome reflects a nuanced approach where severe misconduct is acknowledged, yet the ultimate penalty is adjusted to reflect the unique context of the individual’s service and health.