Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Dawson

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

CITATION:

Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Dawson & Anor [2017] QCAT 37

PARTIES:

Crime and Corruption Commission
(Applicant)

v

Assistant Commissioner Alistair Dawson
Andrew Jacob Bayley

(Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR078-16

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

1 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision about sanction made by Assistant Commissioner Dawson is set aside.

2.    The following sanction is substituted:

(i)      Andrew Jacob Bailey is reduced from pay-point 1.4 to pay-point 1.2 for the period of 12 months from 9 August 2016;

(ii)     Subject to completion of the usual industrial requirements, Andrew Jacob Bailey may progress to pay-point 1.5 from 9 August 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

DISCIPLINE- POLICE – SANCTION FOR MISCONDUCT- where officer used excessive force against a prisoner by striking him in the face with a closed fist- where officer remorseful and proactive in admitting and dealing with the conduct- where junior officer with otherwise unblemished service record-

where parties make joint submissions as to proposed sanction- whether sanction within permissible range 

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219A, s 219G, s 219H
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), reg 3

Belz v Assistant Commissioner Wilson [2011] QCAT 632
Belz v Assistant Commissioner Wilson [2012] QCATA 185
Crime and Corruption Commission v Deputy Commissioner Stephan Gollschewski & Anor (No 2) [2014] QCAT 488
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright [2011] QCATA 309

APPEARANCES:

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

  1. Mr Jacob Andrew Bayley is a police constable. He faced a disciplinary charge under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) (PSA Act). Assistant Commissioner Alistair Dawson (the Assistant Commissioner) heard the allegation of misconduct. He found, on the basis of admissions made by Mr Bayley, that the allegations were substantiated and amounted to misconduct. Although Mr Bayley admitted the conduct, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the evidence, in any event, supported the finding.

  2. The substantiated charge (except that I have de-identified the prisoner’s name) was specified as follows:

    Matter 1:

    That on 25 October 2015 at Rockhampton your conduct was improper in that you used excessive force against (a prisoner) in the Rockhampton Watchhouse.

    Further and better particulars:

    Investigations have identified that:

    ·     On 25 October 2015 you were performing duty in the Rockhampton Division;

    ·     At about 2.15 am you transported (a prisoner) to the Rockhampton Watchhouse;

    ·     At about 3.00 am while you were assisting in lodging (the prisoner) in a cell, he spat out through the closing door of the cell;

    ·     You responded by entering the cell and striking( the prisoner) to the face with a closed right fist.

  3. In particular, Assistant Commissioner Dawson found…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Daw... 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
[2017] QCAT 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Dawson concerned a police officer who had used excessive force against a prisoner. The officer, Andrew Jacob Bailey, admitted to striking the prisoner in the face with a closed fist. The issue before the court was whether the sanction imposed by the Assistant Commissioner was appropriate and whether it should be altered. The Crime and Corruption Commission challenged the sanction, arguing it was too lenient given the gravity of the misconduct.

The court had to determine if the sanction was suitable given the officer's conduct, and whether it was proportionate to the breach of the police code of conduct. The officer's remorse and proactive steps in admitting the misconduct were considered. The court also noted that the officer had an otherwise unblemished service record. The Commission argued for a harsher penalty, while the officer and the Assistant Commissioner contended that the imposed sanction was appropriate.

The court found that the Assistant Commissioner's decision was not sufficiently severe to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The court set aside the original sanction and substituted a more stringent penalty, reducing the officer from pay-point 1.4 to pay-point 1.2 for 12 months, with the possibility of progression to pay-point 1.5 upon meeting industrial requirements. This decision aimed to balance the officer's remorse and clean record against the need for accountability and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision about sanction made by Assistant Commissioner Dawson is set aside.

2. The following sanction is substituted:

(i) Andrew Jacob Bailey is reduced from pay-point 1.4 to pay-point 1.2 for the period of 12 months from 9 August 2016;

(ii) Subject to completion of the usual industrial requirements, Andrew Jacob Bailey may progress to pay-point 1.5 from 9 August 2017.

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.