CITATION: | Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169 |
PARTIES: | Daniel Caesar |
| v | |
| Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR007-16 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Allen |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 May 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of Deputy Commissioner Pointing is confirmed. |
CATCHWORDS: | POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION –DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where police officer had diagnosis of mental illness at time of charge – where multiple false and/or misleading statements made in applications for advertised vacancy – where admission of the further and better particulars of charge -whether diagnosis of mental illness provides defence against charge - whether diagnosis of mental illness can mitigate sanction Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) s 219BA, s 219G Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd.R 235 Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police 53 ALJR 593 |
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
Introduction
Mr Caesar, was a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’). On 22 January 2016, Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing (‘the Deputy Commissioner’) decided that a disciplinary charge (Matter 1) brought against Mr Caesar was substantiated, and was misconduct[1]. The sanction that the Deputy Commissioner ordered[2] was that Mr Caesar be dismissed from the QPS effective at 4.00pm that day. Mr Caesar was dissatisfied with the decision and has applied to the tribunal to have it reviewed[3].
[1]Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) (PSA Act), s 7.4(2).
[2]PSA Act, s 7.4(3).
[3]Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (CC Act), s 219BA, s 219G.
Jurisdiction
When reviewing a police disciplinary decision the Tribunal does so by way of a rehearing on the evidence given in the proceeding before the original decision-maker[4], unless the Tribunal grants leave to adduce fresh evidence[5]. The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision[6].
[4]CC Act s219H (1)
[5]CC Act, s 219H(2).
[6]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 20(1).
The primary purpose of misconduct and discipline proceedings within the police force have been identified as the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence and the maintenance of integrity in…
Continue reading Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169
- Case
- [2017] QCAT 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the tribunal included whether Caesar's mental illness constituted a defence against the charge of misconduct, and whether it could be considered as a mitigating factor in the sanction imposed. The tribunal had to assess the relevance of mental health diagnoses in the context of police disciplinary proceedings and determine whether the officer's condition should influence the tribunal's decision on both liability and penalty.
The tribunal found that Caesar's mental illness did not provide a defence against the charge of misconduct. The tribunal held that the making of false statements in a job application is inherently dishonest regardless of the applicant's mental health status. Furthermore, the tribunal determined that while Caesar's mental illness was a relevant factor, it did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the penalty. The tribunal concluded that the misconduct was serious enough to warrant dismissal, and the diagnosis of mental illness did not sufficiently mitigate the need for such a sanction. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss Caesar from the police force.
In light of the tribunal's findings, the decision of Deputy Commissioner Pointing was confirmed. Caesar's appeal against the disciplinary action was dismissed, and he was required to leave his position as a police officer. The tribunal's decision underscores the importance of honesty in job applications and the limited scope for mental health conditions to serve as a defence or substantial mitigation in cases of misconduct within the police force.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of Deputy Commissioner Pointing is confirmed.
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.