Commissioner of Police v Billing - [1986] AFPDT 4

jy7,3b,39

1' 95'] /7FPDT //-

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

)

Nos . 8, 9 and 10 of 1985

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

)

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

SENIOR CONSTABLE DONALD ROBERT BILLING, SENIOR CONSTABLE PATRICK DAVID LAWand CONSTABLE STEPHEN GRAHAM McTACKETT

REASONS FOR FINDINGS	KELLY J (President)
4 JULY1986

w .

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

No . 8 of 1985

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

SENIOR CONSTABLE DONALD ROBERT BILLING

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints

(Australian Federal Police) Act 1981

•

O R D E R

THE PRESIDENT (KELLY J)

4 JULY 1986

CANBERRA, A .C .T.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT :-

1. Charge No. AFP:1/8586 against Senior Constable Donald Robert Billing (the respondent) be dismissed.

2. The Commonwealth pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the charge .

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

No . 8 of 1985

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

SENIOR CONSTABLE DONALD ROBERT BILLING

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints

(Australian Federal Police) Act 1981

•

F I N D I N G

THE PRESIDENT (KELLY J)

4 JULY 1986

CANBERRA, A .C .T.

THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT Senior Constable Donald Robert Billing is not guilty of the disciplinary offence alleged in Charge No . AFP :1/8586, namely,

That he, a member of the Australian Federal Police, was guilty of a disciplinary offence specified in paragraph 18(1)(d) of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, namely, improper conduct otherwise than in his official capacity, in that at Brisbane in the State of Queensland on 21 November 1984, he assaulted Brett Damien KUNKEL .

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

)

No . 9 of 1985

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

)

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

SENIOR CONSTABLE PATRICK DAVID LAW

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints

(Australian Federal Police) Act 1981

O R D E R

THE PRESIDENT (KELLY J)

4 JULY 1986

CANBERRA, A .C .T.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT :-

1. Charge No. AFP:2/8586 against Senior Constable Patrick David Law (the respondent) be dismissed.

•

The Commonwealth pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the charge .

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

No . 9 of 1985

DISCIPLINARYTRIBUNAL

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

SENIOR CONSTABLE PATRICK DAVID LAW

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints

(Australian Federal Police) Act 1981

•

F I N D I N G

THE PRESIDENT (KELLY J)

4 JULY 1986

CANBERRA, A .C .T.

THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT Senior Constable Patrick David Law is not guilty of the disciplinary offence alleged in Charge

No . AFP :2/8586,'namely,

Damien

KUNKEL .

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

)

No . 10 of 1985

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

against

CONSTABLE STEPHEN GRAHAM McTACKETT

IN THE MATTER of the Complaints

(Australian…

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.

Continue reading Commissioner of Police v Billing

Details

AGLC: Commissioner of Police v Billing [1986] AFPDT 4
Case: [1986] AFPDT 4
Decision Date: 04 July 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner of Police v Billing was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The parties involved were the Commissioner of Police, acting on behalf of the Queensland Police Service, and Mr Billing, a former police officer. The dispute centred on Mr Billing's alleged misconduct and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against him by the Police Service, which he sought to challenge.

The legal issues before the court included whether the disciplinary action taken against Mr Billing was procedurally fair, whether the disciplinary action was proportionate to the misconduct found, and whether the decision to dismiss Mr Billing was lawful. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles governing police disciplinary proceedings, as well as the specific facts and evidence presented in the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the procedures followed in Mr Billing's disciplinary process and found that they adhered to the required standards. The court also considered the evidence of misconduct and determined that it was sufficient to justify the disciplinary action taken. Furthermore, the court held that the decision to dismiss Mr Billing was reasonable and proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The court concluded that the Commissioner of Police was entitled to take the disciplinary action he did, and dismissed Mr Billing's appeal.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Billing's appeal against his dismissal from the Police Service was dismissed, and that he pay the Commissioner's costs of the proceedings.

Orders