Bowley v Deputy Commissioner Martin

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

CITATION:

Bowley v Deputy Commissioner Martin [2018] QCAT 111

PARTIES:

Collin Robert Bowley
(Applicant)

v

Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR273-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application for a stay is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where applicant resigned as police officer – where Deputy Commissioner declared applicant would have been dismissed if he had remained employed – whether applicant may have an arguable case on review

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether balance of convenience favours a stay

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), Part 7A

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24

Aldrich v Boulton & Anor [2000] QCA 501
Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Kennedy [2011] QCATA 254
Erathnage v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 418

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Bowley resigned as a police officer effective from 30 June 2017.

  2. On 7 November 2017, Deputy Commissioner Martin decided to take disciplinary action against Mr Bowley as a former officer under Part 7A of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld). The Deputy Commissioner declared that if Mr Bowley had remained employed with the Queensland Police Service, he would have been dismissed.

  3. The Deputy Commissioner found that the following disciplinary ground was substantiated:

    Ground 1:

    That between 1 December 2016 and 13 January 2017 at Atherton your conduct was improper in that you:

    a)  accessed Queensland Police Service computer records relating to motor vehicles and their owners without an official purpose;

    b) drove an unregistered motor vehicle; and

    c) inappropriately acquired a motor vehicle and a campervan.

    …

    Further and better particulars:

    Investigations have identified that:

    In relation to Ground one (a):

    ·whilst on duty you conducted a number of computer checks on a white Hyundai Getz registration number 189SJW, Mr Patrick Powell  (former owner), a campervan registration number AM6528 and Mr John Barrett (former owner);

    ·on 2 December 2016, you conducted computer checks in relation to the White Hyundai Getz motor vehicle;

    ·on 4 December 2016 you conducted computer checks in relation to Mr Patrick Powell (former owner of the White Hyundai Getz);

    ·on 5 December 2016, you conducted computer checks in relation to the White Hyundai Getz motor vehicle;

    ·on 13 December 2016, you conducted computer checks in relation to a campervan registration number AM6528 and the former owner Mr John Barrett;

    ·on 13 December 2016, you conducted computer checks in relation to the White Hyundai Getz motor vehicle; and

    ·on 20 December 2016, you conducted computer checks in relation to the White Hyundai Getz motor vehicle.

    In relation to Ground one (b):

    ·on or about 16 December 2016, 19 December 2016 and 3…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bowley v Deputy Commissioner Martin 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] QCAT 111
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bowley v Deputy Commissioner Martin involved an application by Bowley, a former police officer, seeking judicial review of a decision by the Deputy Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service. Bowley had resigned from his position, and the Deputy Commissioner declared that he would have been dismissed had he not resigned, due to findings of misconduct. The central issue was whether Bowley could argue a case on review, despite his resignation, and whether the balance of convenience favoured a stay of the decision pending the outcome of the review. The court was required to determine if Bowley's resignation affected his ability to seek judicial review of the decision, and if so, under what circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a stay was warranted to prevent potential injustice while the review was underway.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the ability of an individual to seek judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly in the context of disciplinary actions and resignations. It considered whether Bowley's resignation, despite being influenced by the impending disciplinary action, still allowed him to argue his case on review. The court also looked into the balance of convenience, weighing the potential harm to the public interest and the respective parties if a stay was granted. In reaching its decision, the court held that Bowley's resignation did not preclude him from seeking judicial review, as the declaration of dismissal would have significant consequences for his career and reputation. However, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as the potential harm to the public interest and the reputation of the police service outweighed any inconvenience to Bowley.

Consequently, the court ruled that the application for a stay was refused. The court did not find it appropriate to halt the proceedings pending the outcome of the review, considering the broader implications for the administration of justice and the integrity of the police service. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining the disciplinary process's integrity and the need for timely resolution of such matters. The court's ruling ensured that the disciplinary decision would be subject to judicial scrutiny without undue delay, safeguarding both the rights of the individual and the public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for a stay is refused.

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.