WILLIAM GRANT ALDRICH (applicant/respondent) v KERRY FRANCIS BOULTON (first respondent/not a party to the appeal) CALLUM GRANT ROSS (second respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2861 of 2000 SC No 8825 of 1999
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
12 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 September 2000
JUDGES:
Pincus and Thomas JJA, Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:
Appeal allowed. Set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 6 March 2000 and in lieu thereof order that the respondent’s application for a statutory order of review is dismissed. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – ERROR OF LAW
POLICE – MISCONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE – QUEENSLAND
POLICE – TRIBUNALS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES – nature of appeal available from the decision of a prescribed officer to dismiss a police officer from the Queensland Police Service under the Police Service Administration Act1990 – where prescribed officer determined that the appellant should be dismissed from the force – where decision of prescribed officer overturned by Misconduct Tribunal – whether principles from House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied to the appeal to the Misconduct Tribunal – whether the Misconduct Tribunal erred in overturning the decision of the prescribed officer in the absence of a demonstrable error of law by the prescribed officer – prescribed officer under no obligation to give reasons for decision – weighing up of indicia as to nature of the appeal – Brideson [No 2] (1990) 170 CLR 267 and Coal & Allied Operations v AIRC (2000) 74 ALJR 1348 discussed – Misconduct Tribunal required to make its own decision on the evidence available - whether Misconduct Tribunal exceeded or misapplied its powers on the appeal – relevant criteria when appeal against penalty is heard upon same material as that before prescribed officer
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Aldrich v Ross
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Aldrich v Ross [2000] QCA 501
Case
[2000] QCA 501
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Aldrich v Ross involved an appeal against the dismissal of a police officer from the Queensland Police Service. The appellant, Aldrich, was dismissed by a prescribed officer under the Police Service Administration Act 1990. This decision was subsequently overturned by a Misconduct Tribunal. The dispute reached the court, which was required to determine whether the principles set out in House v The King applied to the appeal to the Misconduct Tribunal. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the Misconduct Tribunal had erred in overturning the prescribed officer's decision without identifying a demonstrable error of law. Another issue was whether the prescribed officer was obligated to provide reasons for their decision. The court also had to weigh the various indicators of the nature of the appeal, referencing cases such as Brideson [No 2] and Coal & Allied Operations v AIRC.
The court examined the nature of the appeal available from the decision of a prescribed officer to dismiss a police officer. It was necessary to determine whether the principles from House v The King applied to the appeal to the Misconduct Tribunal. The court noted that the prescribed officer was not required to provide reasons for their decision. The court also considered the relevant criteria when an appeal against a penalty is heard on the same material as that before the prescribed officer. The court found that the Misconduct Tribunal was required to make its own decision based on the evidence available. The key issue was whether the Misconduct Tribunal exceeded or misapplied its powers when overturning the prescribed officer's decision in the absence of a demonstrable error of law.
The court held that the principles from House v The King did not apply to the appeal to the Misconduct Tribunal. The court found that the prescribed officer was not obligated to provide reasons for their decision, and the Misconduct Tribunal was required to make its own decision based on the evidence presented. The court concluded that the Misconduct Tribunal did not err in overturning the prescribed officer's decision, as there was no demonstrable error of law. The court found that the Misconduct Tribunal did not exceed or misapply its powers. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court was set aside. The respondent's application for a statutory order of review was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed. Set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 6 March 2000 and in lieu thereof order that the respondent’s application for a statutory order of review is dismissed. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to be assessed.