Chester v Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby (No 2) - [2014] QCAT 695

CITATION:

Chester v Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby & Ors (No 2) [2014] QCAT 695

PARTIES:	Georgia Chester (Applicant)
v
Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby Plain Clothes Senior Constable Bill Jones State of Queensland (Respondents)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	ADL101-11

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE:

26 – 27 August 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Favell

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2014 and 10 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application Dismissed

2. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and s 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 it is ordered that:
i) The publication of any information concerning the subject complaint of the Applicant such that the applicant and the individual respondent could be identified is prohibited;
ii) The disclosure of the identities of the applicant and the individual Respondents is prohibited;

iii) Any identification of the Applicant and the individual respondents to this proceeding, subject to other order of the Tribunal, shall adopt the pseudonyms for the Applicant of Georgia Chester and for the respondents of Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby and Plain Clothes Senior Constable Bill Jones.

CATCHWORDS:

Anti-discrimination –

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 8, s 9, s 10, s 101, s 103, s 104, s 130, s 133, s 191
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss 382, s 418, s 419, s 365
Criminal Code s 357
Disability and Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 5
Operations and Procedural Manual Queensland Police - 16.1.1, 16.10, 16.10.4, 16.9.1, 16.9.4, 16.12.4, 16.9.5, 6.3.1, 16.13.1

Haines v Leves [1987] 8 NSWLR 402 at 471 Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13
Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1980] QB 87 Clay Cross [Quarry services] Ltd v Fletcher [1987] 1 WLR 1429
Garton v Hilllcrest Hospital Inc (1984) EOC 92 -02 at 76-010
Puruis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 202 ALR 133 Forbes v Australia Federal Police (Cth) [2004] FCAFC 95
Tate v Rafin and Others (2000) FCA 1582
Ware v OAMPS Insurance Brokers [2005] FMCA 664
NSW (Department of Education and Training) v Human Right and Equal Opportunity Commission (2001) 186 ALR 69
McRostie v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999]
Webster v Gilbert, Meadowcroft D Araughonqut [2004] QADT 40

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Georgia Chester
RESPONDENT:	Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby and Plain clothes Senior Constable Bill Jones and State of Queensland represented by Mr J.W Merrell of Counsel instructed by Queensland Police Service Solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant on 13^th February 2009 attended Ultra Tune Cairns in an attempt to arrange a refund in respect of repair work done on the Applicants car. At that time she alleges that she was struck on the side of the head with a metal object by the manager. Police attended the scene. The Applicant was taken to the Cairns Police Station where photographs were taken and a statement was taken. The Applicant made a complaint concerning the alleged assault…

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 Chester v Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby (No 2) 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: [2014] QCAT 695
Decision Date: 12 December 2014 and 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chester v Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby, the applicant, Georgia Chester, sought relief from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the respondent, Detective Senior Constable Jane Barnaby. The dispute centred around an allegation of discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, following an incident where Chester claimed she was racially profiled and subsequently discriminated against by Detective Senior Constable Barnaby during a traffic stop. Chester sought both compensation and a declaration of discrimination.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Chester had been subjected to unlawful discrimination and whether the respondent's conduct met the statutory criteria for racial discrimination. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to determine whether any publication or disclosure of the parties' identities was permissible under the relevant statutes. Chester argued that the respondent's actions during the traffic stop amounted to discriminatory conduct based on her race, while the respondent contended that her actions were within the scope of her duties and did not constitute discrimination.

The Tribunal found that while Chester's experience was distressing and the respondent's conduct could be considered unreasonable, it did not amount to racial discrimination as defined by the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions were part of her professional duties and did not involve any discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Chester's application for relief. The Tribunal also made orders under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to protect the identities of the parties involved in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application Dismissed

2. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 and s 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 it is ordered that:

i) The publication of any information concerning the subject complaint of the Applicant such that the applicant and the individual respondent could be identified is prohibited;

ii) The disclosure of the identities of the applicant and the individual Respondents is prohibited;

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.