CITATION: | Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Dawson & Anor [2017] QCAT 37 |
PARTIES: | Crime and Corruption Commission |
| v | |
| Assistant Commissioner Alistair Dawson (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 Belz v Assistant Commissioner Wilson [2011] QCAT 632 |
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).
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.
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.
In particular, Assistant Commissioner Dawson found…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QCAT 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.