Home / Chain of command
Follow the chain
Who had authority?
Authority for the use of force runs down a structure that is public and written down. Mapping it comes first: before you can ask who gave an order, you need to know who could.
Two claims this interface will never merge.
Every node below carries both. The first describes the law and the administrative structure. The second describes this specific incident and requires a document. Where there is no document, the node says authorisation not established, however obvious an inference might feel.
Why no names
No individual is named anywhere in this chain. That is a rule we work to, not a gap.
We add a person to an office only when a sourced document places them in it at the relevant time. Even then the node reports two separate things: that they held the office, and, only if a document says so, that they authorised the action.
Naming someone because they held a post at the time turns an investigation into an allegation, and gets it dismissed.
What would change a node
Any one of these, sourced:
- A signed deployment or dispersal order.
- A wireless or control-room log recording an instruction and the officer who gave it.
- A station diary or duty register entry naming the officer commanding at the time.
- An RTI reply confirming that a record exists, and in which office it sits.
- An affidavit or a reply in the legislature stating who authorised what.