SAPS given permission to dismiss cop caught shoplifting at Woolies

The Herald

17-07-2025

A s anction of two months' suspension without pay meted out to a police officer for theft has been substituted by the Labour Court, which ruled the SA Police Service may terminate the errant officer's employment with immediate effect.
Acting judge Deidre Venter said the sanction at the disciplinary hearing by Brig BE Bornman did not match the seriousness of the misconduct and overlooked the broader need to maintain public confidence in the police service.
W/O GF Madeley, who was stationed at the Nyanga police station in the Western Cape, was stopped by a security guard when he tried to shoplift at a Woolworths store in the Canal Walk shopping mall on January 8 2022.
A disciplinary hearing was launched at which he was charged with misconduct. He was accused of theft and of tarnishing the reputation of his employer by bringing its name into disrepute.
Madeley, who had 19 years' service, pleaded guilty and asked for a light sanction, saying he was a first offender, he had financial commitments and he suffered from bipolar disorder. He submitted a medical report from a psychiatrist confirming his condition and stating it was "probable he committed the offence while being absent-minded".
The SAPS, however, contended the theft was premeditated on the grounds that: He had entered the shop with a trolley containing empty bags which he filled with items before attempting to leave the shop.
He had walked past a pay point with a trolley loaded with bags of goods.
He was stopped by security personnel and chose to run out of the store to escape the scene.
He had every opportunity to explain himself when he was stopped at the exit but chose not to do so.
The labour court agreed Madeley's behaviour amounted to serious misconduct.
The only reason for not dismissing him at the disciplinary hearing that could be gathered from Bornman's written reasons was that "the employee pleaded guilty and did not waste the employer's time".
Venter said she "failed to consider vital evidence related to the gravity of the offence and the trust relationship".
"Any reasonable decision-maker would have concluded suspension without pay was too lenient and dismissal was appropriate."
TimesLIVE