Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission & Anor

Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission & Anor involved a challenge by Constable Arndt against a decision of the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) to review a decision made by Assistant Commissioner Doyle not to take disciplinary action against him. The dispute centred on whether the Assistant Commissioner's decision not to discipline Constable Arndt constituted a "reviewable decision" under the Police Service Administration Act 1999 (PSAA). The legal issues included the interpretation of the term "reviewable decision" and whether the Assistant Commissioner's decision to provide managerial guidance instead of disciplinary action qualified as a disciplinary decision.

The Appeal Tribunal considered the ordinary meaning of "decision" and "allegation of misconduct" and concluded that a "reviewable decision" under s 219BA of the PSAA must be a decision made within the context of disciplinary action. The Tribunal found that Assistant Commissioner Doyle's decision to give managerial guidance, rather than take disciplinary action, did not amount to a disciplinary decision as required by the statute. The CMC argued that the Assistant Commissioner was a "prescribed officer" with the authority to take disciplinary action, but the Tribunal held that this authority was only applicable if the officer formed the opinion that disciplinary action was necessary. Since Assistant Commissioner Doyle decided against disciplinary action, he did not qualify as a "prescribed officer" for the purposes of making a disciplinary decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, holding that the Assistant Commissioner's decision was not a reviewable decision. The application by the CMC to review the Assistant Commissioner's decision was struck out.