| CITATION: | Belz v Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson [2010] QCAT 595 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Damien Belz |
| v | |
| Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR288-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Joanne Browne, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 November 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for stay is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS : | Application for stay Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 section 22; public interest considered; and interests of the applicant considered |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| Decision on the papers. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Application
An application has been made by the applicant to review a decision made on 29 October 2010 by a assistant commissioner of police, Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson (“the respondent”) in relation to a disciplinary hearing conducted under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the Queensland Police Human Resource Management Manual (“HRMM”) held on 19 October 2010.
The respondent delivered his findings and reasons on 29 October 2010 that the following disciplinary charge of misconduct against Sergeant Damien Anthony Belz (“the applicant”) was substantiated:
Matter 1
That on the 29th day of November 2009 at Surfers Paradise your conduct did not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer in that you:
a)Used excessive force against Rebecca Maree Pitt, whist she was in custody; and
b)Used excessive force against Rebecca Maree Pitt, whilst she was in custody.
[Section 1.4 and 7.4 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and s. 9(1) (f) of the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990.]
Further and better particulars
Investigations have identified that:
§On 29 November 2009 you held the position of Sergeant at the Surfers Paradise Police Station, within the South Eastern Region;
§You performed duty as a shift supervisor from 11:00pm in the prisoner processing area at Surfers Paradise Station;
§At about 11:40pm on 29 November 2009 Rebecca Maree Pitt was in custody and placed in a holding cell; and
§While in the holding cell the prisoner attempted to self harm by hitting her head against fixed objects within the holding cell.
In relation to 1 a):
§At about 11:50pm on 29 November 2009 you entered the holding cell, took hold of Rebecca Maree Pitt’s hair and moved her from the cell floor to the cell bench seat.
In relation to 1 b):
§At about 11:52pm on 29 November 2009 you re-entered the holding cell, took hold of Rebecca Maree Pitt’s hair and moved her from the cell bench seat to an area outside that holding cell.
The respondent having found the charge to be substantiated ordered that the applicant be demoted in rank from Sergeant 3.3 to Senior Constable 2.9 for a period of twelve (12) months from [29 October 2010] and further ordered that:
“At the end of the twelve month period and dependant upon your successful completion of your Performance Planning and Assessment (PPA), I order you be eligible to apply for the rank of Sergeant”.
The applicant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Belz v Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QCAT 595
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, particularly section 22, which outlines the circumstances under which a stay may be granted. The tribunal considered the public interest in enforcing the decision, the potential harm to the public if the decision was stayed, and Belz's interests in seeking a stay. The tribunal also weighed the merits of Belz's application and the likelihood of success on the merits. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the application for a stay should be dismissed. The tribunal found that the public interest in enforcing the decision outweighed Belz's interests in seeking a stay.
The tribunal dismissed the application for a stay of the Assistant Commissioner's decision. In reaching this decision, the tribunal determined that the public interest in enforcing the decision was significant, and the potential harm to the public if the decision was stayed was substantial. Additionally, the tribunal found that Belz's interests in seeking a stay were not sufficient to warrant a stay. The tribunal also considered the merits of Belz's application and found that the likelihood of success on the merits was low. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the application for a stay of the Assistant Commissioner's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for stay is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.