Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission & Rynders - [2012] QCATA 16

CITATION:

Chapman v Crime and Misconduct Commission & Rynders [2012] QCATA 16

PARTIES:	Damien Chapman (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Crime and Misconduct Commission (First Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Kathy Rynders, Queensland Police Service (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL363-10

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – QUESTION OF LAW – FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – IMPROPER CONDUCT – where the Crime and Misconduct Commission sought a review of Internal Police Service disciplinary charges alleging misconduct – where QCAT Tribunal found the appellant guilty of improper conduct in the course of his work as a sergeant in the Queensland Police Service –whether the QCAT Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations – whether the decision of the QCAT Tribunal was against the evidence – whether the QCAT Tribunal made errors of fact vitiating its conclusions

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, ss 219BA, 219G
Police Service Administration Act 1990, s 7.4
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 17-20

Aldrich v Ross [2001] Qd R 235
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135
Neat Holdings v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Rejfek v McElroy (1964-5) 112 CLR 517
Whitemore v O’Sullivan [2010] QCA 366

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT: Mr Smith of Counsel representing Damien Chapman
RESPONDENTS: Mr Allen of Counsel representing the Crime and Misconduct Commission
Mr McLeod of Counsel representing Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Chapman, formerly a sergeant in the Queensland Police Service, was found last year by a QCAT Tribunal to be guilty of improper conduct, in that he used excessive force while arresting a 15 year old youth at Clontarf on 18 May 2007. The youth suffered a ruptured spleen on that day, at a time when he was in police custody.
Internal Police Service disciplinary charges alleging misconduct were initially decided in Mr Chapman’s favour by a Deputy Commissioner. The CMC sought a review before QCAT and, after a hearing, the Tribunal (comprised of the Hon James Thomas AM QC and Ms S Booth, Senior Member) found Mr Chapman guilty of improper conduct[1].
[1]Crime and Misconduct Commission v Deputy Commissioner Qld Police Service & Chapman [2010] QCAT 564.
Following that decision, Mr Chapman resigned from the police force. At a subsequent hearing about penalty the Tribunal indicated that, but for his resignation, it would have ordered that he be dismissed. This is an appeal from the decision in which he was found guilty of improper conduct.
The appeal contains numerous questions of law, but the primary ground argued is that the Tribunal’s decision was contrary to and against the weight of evidence. Under s 142(3)(b) of the QCAT Act, the primary ground can only be argued and heard if the…

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 & Rynders 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 16
Decision Date: 6 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman, an appellant, faced disciplinary charges brought by the Crime and Misconduct Commission, with Rynders as the respondent. The charges stemmed from alleged misconduct during Chapman's tenure as a sergeant in the Queensland Police Service. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found Chapman guilty of improper conduct. Chapman sought judicial review of the QCAT decision, contending that the tribunal erred in its consideration of relevant and irrelevant factors and that its findings were against the weight of evidence. The central legal issues revolved around whether the QCAT Tribunal appropriately assessed the evidence and whether it erred in its factual conclusions.

The court examined whether the QCAT Tribunal had correctly identified and applied the relevant considerations and if it had inadvertently included irrelevant factors. The court also scrutinized whether the QCAT Tribunal's conclusions were against the evidence and whether any factual errors undermined the tribunal's findings. The court concluded that the QCAT Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors and had not erred in its factual determinations. The tribunal's decision was found to be consistent with the evidence presented. Consequently, the court dismissed Chapman's appeal, affirming the QCAT Tribunal's findings of improper conduct.

The court's reasoning was grounded in a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The court found that the QCAT Tribunal had meticulously considered the relevant aspects of the case and had not included any extraneous factors in its decision-making process. The tribunal's conclusions were deemed to be well-supported by the evidence, and no errors of fact were identified that would invalidate the findings. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original disciplinary charges against Chapman were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.