Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright - [2022] QCAT 243

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright & Anor [2022] QCAT 243

PARTIES:

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
(applicant)

v

ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D A WRIGHT
and
BJB

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR288-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

1. The decision on sanction imposed by Acting Deputy Commissioner D A Wright, namely that BJB is to complete 40 hours of community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within a period of 12 months, is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – whether sanction imposed for misconduct should be changed

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219G, s 219H
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 69
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld),
s 1.4, s 7.1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 20

Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Pointing [2021] QCAT 133
Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235
BJB v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright & CCC [2021] QCAT 448
Crime and Corruption Commission v Deputy Commissioner Pointing; O’Sullivan v Deputy Commissioner Pointing [2016] QCAT 510
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Deputy
Assistant Commissioner Brian J A Wilkins & Anor v Gunter (No 2) [2021] QCATA 42
Peat v Lin & Ors [2005] 1 Qd R 40.
Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397

Tolsher v Commissioner of Police Ian Stewart (No 2) [2013] QCAT 590

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

BRB is a Sergeant in the Queensland Police Service. He faced four allegations of misconduct under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the PSA Act’). Acting Deputy Commissioner D A Wright heard the charges against BRB. He found that each of the allegations were substantiated.
The first three allegations of misconduct were the subject of review by the Tribunal in BJB v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright & CCC.[1] On 24 June 2021, the Tribunal found that these three allegations were not substantiated.
[1][2021] QCAT 448.
The fourth allegation was admitted by BJB. The details of the allegation are as follows:
On 13 November 2017 at Brisbane your conduct was improper in that whilst off duty, you accessed official and confidential information on the Queensland Police Service Computer system without an official purpose relating to the performance of your duties.
Further and better particulars
·     Investigations have identified that on 9 November 2017 you commenced sick leave but retained possession of your Qlite device;
·     On 13 November 2017 you inappropriately accessed information relating to [omitted] whilst on sick leave; and
·     The access was not in connection with an official purpose relating to the performance of your duties.
Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright decided to impose a sanction in respect of…

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 Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner... 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: [2022] QCAT 243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute involved a sanction imposed on Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright for accessing police information for non-official purposes. The Acting Deputy Commissioner argued that the sanction of 40 hours of community service was appropriate and preferable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sanction imposed was just and appropriate, considering the definition of "misconduct" under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld). The definition of misconduct includes conduct that is disgraceful, improper, unbecoming, shows unfitness, or does not meet community expectations of a police officer. The tribunal needed to determine whether the Acting Deputy Commissioner's conduct met these criteria.

The tribunal found that the Acting Deputy Commissioner's actions did not meet the standard of conduct expected by the community. The Standard of Practice for Queensland Police Service members explicitly states that accessing information without an official purpose is unacceptable. The tribunal referenced previous cases, including Assistant Commissioner Brian JA Wilkins & Anor v Gunter (No 2), to reinforce that police officers do not have unlimited power to investigate as they see fit without authorisation from superior officers. The tribunal concluded that the Acting Deputy Commissioner's actions were not in line with his duties and did not meet the community's expectations of police conduct. The tribunal upheld the sanction of 40 hours of community service, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public confidence and safeguarding official information.

The tribunal's decision was that the sanction of 40 hours of community service was just and appropriate, considering the nature of the misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence in the police service. The tribunal did not alter the sanction imposed by the learned Member.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright submitted that the current sanction of 40 hours of community services at a Police Citizens Youth Club within a period of 12 months is the correct and preferable decision.Consideration ‘Misconduct’ is defined in s 1.4 of the PSA Act to mean conduct that:(a) is disgraceful, improper or unbecoming an officer; or (b) shows unfitness to be or continue as an officer; or (c) does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer. In relation to accessing personal information for non-official purposes, the Tribunal stated in Assistant Commissioner Brian JA Wilkins & Anor v Gunter (No 2):[5]Neither the provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld)56 nor the common law concerning the duties of constables confers a power upon police officers to undertake investigation of suspected criminal offences at their own whim without regard to the hierarchy of police service command. Even if Sergeant Gunter’s explanation for his QPRIME inquiries regarding other persons is accepted at face value, such inquiries were not in the performance of his duties as a police officer. He was not allocated such investigations by his superior officers and did not seek the permission of his superior officers to conduct such investigations. Sergeant Gunter’s status as a police officer did not confer upon him an unlimited power to investigate suspected criminal offences as he saw fit. In the absence of authorisation of his investigations by his superiors, the QPRIME inquiries cannot reasonably be regarded as being with an official purpose in the performance of his duties as a police officer. In the circumstances of this matter, it was not reasonably open to the learned Member to find otherwise.…The Standard of Practice clearly provides that members are not to access, use or release information without an official purpose related to the performance of their duties.…The requirement that QPS members only access information on the QPS system as provided in the Standard of Practice for an official purpose related to the performance of their duties is critical to maintaining public confidence in the police force and the safeguard of official and confidential information retained on the QPS systems such as QPRIME. Further to that, the public expects that members of the QPS only access information for an official purpose related to their duties.…We determine that the Standard of Practice provides a set of guiding principles and standards to assist members in determining an acceptable standard of conduct. The Standard of Practice is to be read as a whole. The purpose of discipline reflected in the Standard of Practice, is the maintenance of public confidence in the police service, of self-esteem of police officers and efficiency. Further to that, the requirement in the Standard of Practice that members of the Service access or release information for an official purpose related to the performance of their duties is critical to ensure the safeguarding of official and confidential information on the QPS systems such as QPRIME and to maintain public confidence.[5][2021] QCATA 42, [63], [66], [73] and [101].

CITATION:	Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright & Anor [2022] QCAT 243
PARTIES:	CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (applicant)
v
ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D A WRIGHT and BJB (respondents)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR288-19
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	27 June 2022
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Cranwell
ORDERS:	1. The decision on sanction imposed by Acting Deputy Commissioner D A Wright, namely that BJB is to complete 40 hours of community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within a period of 12 months, is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – whether sanction imposed for misconduct should be changed Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219G, s 219H Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 69 Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4, s 7.1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 20 Acreman v Deputy Commissioner Pointing [2021] QCAT 133 Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 BJB v Acting Deputy Commissioner Wright & CCC [2021] QCAT 448 Crime and Corruption Commission v Deputy Commissioner Pointing; O’Sullivan v Deputy Commissioner Pointing [2016] QCAT 510 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian J A Wilkins & Anor v Gunter (No 2) [2021] QCATA 42 Peat v Lin & Ors [2005] 1 Qd R 40. Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 Tolsher v Commissioner of Police Ian Stewart (No 2) [2013] QCAT 590
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).