Such requests should be evaluated in light of the relevance of the evidence and the requirements of procedural fairness. Where the person under investigation suggests there may be additional evidence that could corroborate their version of events, or otherwise disprove the allegations against them, this evidence should be gathered where practicable. In other cases, witness statements or other evidence will need to be collected and considered.Ĩ.4.

In some cases, physical evidence may be sufficient to establish the facts-for example, in cases involving suspected improper access to personal information, or improper use of email or internet, the investigation is likely to be founded on records of computer use. These can include interviews with witnesses, electronic records (for example, system logs or building access), or written statements. Evidence can be collected from a range of sources. The relevance of prior misconduct should be considered in making a sanction decision. However, it may be reasonable for a decision-maker to take into account previous warnings, directions, or other management action that has been taken in relation to the same matter.

This allows the decision-maker to make their determination solely on the evidence relating to the matter under investigation.

Where this is not possible, the decision-maker should not take previous findings into consideration. It is recommended that the breach decision-maker not be informed that the person under investigation has previous findings of breaches of the Code, if that is the case. Undertaking a misconduct investigation includes gathering and assessing evidence, and, in many cases, preparing an investigation report, to inform a breach determination that is sound and defensible.Ĩ.2.

Hr investigation summary template