Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing

In the case of Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing, the applicant, Geoffrey Owen Acreman, was a police officer with the Queensland Police Service (QPS) who was subject to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The primary issue before the court was whether the sanction imposed on Mr Acreman by the Deputy Commissioner was the correct and preferable decision. The Deputy Commissioner had demoted Mr Acreman from the rank of Inspector to Senior Sergeant and reduced his pay point, following a disciplinary hearing where two allegations of misconduct were substantiated. The first allegation involved an off-duty incident, while the second involved Mr Acreman accessing official and confidential information within the QPS computer system without an official purpose. Mr Acreman sought a review of the sanction imposed, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was not the correct and preferable decision.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of Mr Acreman's conduct, taking into account his unblemished career and the impact of the sanction on his professional standing. The court found that while Mr Acreman's actions were improper, they did not reach the level of the most serious disciplinary matters. The court considered the Deputy Commissioner's reasoning that a demotion was necessary to reflect the gravity of Mr Acreman's conduct and to maintain public confidence in the QPS. However, the court determined that the sanction of a demotion for a period of twelve months, followed by a return to his previous rank, was more appropriate. Additionally, the court ordered that Mr Acreman complete various training courses to address the misconduct.

The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was not the correct and preferable decision and substituted a modified sanction. Mr Acreman was to be demoted to the rank of Senior Sergeant for a period of twelve months, after which he would return to his previous rank of Inspector. Furthermore, Mr Acreman was required to complete specific training modules within a stipulated timeframe. This decision balanced the need to address the misconduct with the recognition of Mr Acreman's otherwise distinguished career.