The 32-year-old’s primary work involved processing and looking after people in police custody in the watchhouse or cell area at the station.
Toby worked a full-time, 10-day roster, which involved working six days followed by four days off.
Between 3 August 2024 and 22 December 2025, he submitted 42 time sheets claiming for extra days he had not worked.
“He did this by opening the Police system called ‘My Police’ and manually entering the shift he would represent that he had worked.
“These time sheets were approved by the custody Sergeant, who was unaware that the dates had not been worked.”
In total, Toby was paid an extra $29,000 for the 42 days.
“This was eventually picked up by the Sergeant, approving the defendant’s time sheets and an investigation was commenced.”
When questioned, Toby said he initially claimed for one extra shift that he had not worked and was not paid.
“He said that he then began claiming for shifts he hadn’t worked on a regular basis until this was picked up by the Sergeant, approving the time sheets and was declined.”
Police sought reparation for the money claimed.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) earlier released a summary of the investigation into Toby.
The IPCA said the sergeant in charge of checking the timesheets was unaware that the dates had not been worked until they became suspicious of the volume of overtime claimed.
“Police investigated and found sufficient evidence that the authorised officer had not worked the hours claimed in approximately 40 submitted timesheets.”
He resigned before police started an employment process.
“Police also investigated the process for approving timesheets and identified general process issues with how timesheets were reviewed and approved. Police have made several adjustments to procedures and staffing levels to reduce the risk of this happening again.”
The IPCA said it was “satisfied with the thorough police investigations” and agreed with the outcomes.
Northland District Commander Superintendent Matt Srhoj earlier said Toby’s behaviour was “totally unacceptable”.
*An earlier version of this article said the individual involved was a police officer. The article has been corrected to say he was, in fact, a police staffer.
