Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission - [2012] QCATA 272

CITATION:

Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission and Anor [2012] QCATA 272

PARTIES:	Stephen Chapman (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Crime and Misconduct Commission Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL437-11

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

24 August 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Charles Brabazon QC, Member
William LeMass, Member

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Affirm the order of 20 October 2011, that Senior Constable[1] Chapman’s level of salary entitlements be reduced by two pay points for a period of two years.

[1] Amended 5 February 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

Police Misconduct – Sanction – Pursuit Policy directions discussed – where respondent failed to follow pursuit policy contained in the Human Resources Management Manual 14.23.5-14.23.7 – where failure to notify local communications centre of the commencement of the pursuit – where failure to abandon pursuit where unacceptable risk to safety – where pursuit resulted in death and serious injury – was sanction imposed justified by officers’ conduct – the impact of delay

Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Assistant Commissioner Barnett and Eaton [2011] QCAT 161

Aldrich v Ross (2001) 2 Qd R 235

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT:

Senior Constable Chapman represented by Mr P Smith of counsel, instructed by Queensland Police Union of Employees

RESPONDENT:

Crime & Misconduct Commission represented by Mr T D Gardiner of counsel instructed by Ms Wood (First Respondent)

Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson represented by Mr S A McLeod of counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Pursuit

On 16 June 2006 at 11:42pm a young man, Craig Shepherd, was riding a powerful Triumph motorcycle along Beechmont Road. The brochure for the machine says that “the Rocket III is a whirling mechanized cycle of power … it may be the largest capacity production motor cycle in the world”. His girlfriend was a pillion passenger. They were some 660 metres past the Nerang-Murwillumbah Road, on a straight section of road. The road then turned sharply, following a cutting in the hillside.
Shepherd braked before the corner. It was not enough. They crashed into the rock wall of the cutting. He died instantly. His girlfriend was seriously injured.

It seems clear that Shepherd was determined to avoid interception by the police following him. He had a significant record of traffic offences. He had no license. He had been disqualified from holding a driver’s license. He was a patched member of a motorcycle gang, Odin’s Warriors. While he was an experienced and confident motor cycle rider he had owned the Triumph for just one week. He enjoyed riding at high speeds. His blood alcohol level was .014[2] percent. It has to be accepted, that he was aware that he was being pursued by police.
[2]Amended 5 February 2013. Counsel’s submissions and parts of the material provided to the Tribunal referred to a blood alcohol level of .14%. That was incorrect. The correct BAC was .014%.

Police car 792 carried two officers. Senior…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission 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: [2012] QCATA 272
Decision Date: 9 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission involved a dispute over the imposition of a sanction on Senior Constable Chapman. The Crime and Misconduct Commission had found that Chapman was guilty of misconduct for his role in a police pursuit that resulted in death and serious injury. The Commission imposed a sanction of a reduction in salary for two years. Chapman appealed this decision on the grounds that the sanction was not justified by his conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sanction imposed on Chapman was justified by his conduct, given that he did not follow the pursuit policy. The court was required to consider whether the failure to adhere to the pursuit policy resulted in an unacceptable risk to safety and whether the delay in the proceedings impacted the appropriateness of the sanction. The court also had to consider the broader implications of the sanction on Chapman's employment and professional reputation.

The court found that Chapman's failure to follow the pursuit policy directions significantly contributed to the unacceptable risk to safety, which resulted in the tragic consequences of the pursuit. The court noted that the delay in the proceedings did not affect the substantive findings of misconduct or the appropriateness of the sanction. The court upheld the original decision, dismissing Chapman's appeal and affirming the order that his salary be reduced by two pay points for two years. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to established police pursuit policies to ensure public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Affirm the order of 20 October 2011, that Senior Constable[1] Chapman’s level of salary entitlements be reduced by two pay points for a period of two years.

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.