Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing No 2

The case of Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing No 2 involved an appeal by the applicant, a police officer, against a decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to impose disciplinary action. The dispute centered around the conduct of the applicant which was alleged to constitute misconduct, and the subsequent appeal tribunal's decision to set aside the finding of misconduct in respect of one of the matters. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues that the court needed to determine were whether the applicant should be awarded costs of the review application and the appeal, and if the costs should be awarded given that the public interest disclosure and statutory immunity was not raised or considered in the primary hearing. The applicant had been unsuccessful in the appeal on one of the matters, but had been granted immunity from disciplinary charge in respect of another matter.

The court found that it was in the interests of justice to award the applicant costs of the review application and the appeal. The court reasoned that the applicant's conduct in raising the issue of public interest disclosure and statutory immunity was a legitimate and reasonable action, and that the failure to raise these issues in the primary hearing was not the fault of the applicant. The court also noted that the appeal tribunal had sought further submissions on the issue of public interest disclosure, which demonstrated that the issue was of significance. The court further found that the respondent's decision to impose disciplinary action was not justified, and that the applicant had suffered significant detriment as a result of the disciplinary action.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent pay the applicant costs in the sum of $15,354.00 by 30 November 2022.