Crime and Corruption Commission v Horton - [2025] QCAT 356

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Crime and Corruption Commission v Horton and Anor [2025] QCAT 356

PARTIES:

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(applicant)

v

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT GLENN HORTON

(first respondent)

CONSTABLE CHRISTOPHER O’CONNELL

(SECOND RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR239-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

13 December 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

1.     The Tribunal Orders that:

(a)     the decision on disciplinary action made by Chief Superintendent Glenn Horton on 8 July 2021 to demote Christopher O’Connell from Senior Constable 2.5 to Constable 1.6 for a period of six months and to suspend such demotion after three months, subject to no further acts of misconduct being substantiated against Christopher O’Connell relating to his conduct within the six month demotion period, is set-aside; and

(b)     in substitution for the decision in (a) above, Christopher O’Connell is demoted from Senior Constable 2.5 to Constable 1.6 for a period of eighteen (18) months commencing on 8 July 2021.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION –DISCIPLINE – MISCONDUCT AND BREACH OF DISCIPLINE – where the Second Respondent engaged in improper conduct by wilfully and repeatedly following, watching and harassing a junior female QPS officer – where the Second Respondent engaged in the improper conduct by accessing it official and confidential information contained with the QPS computer system without an official purpose related to the performance of his duties as a member of the QPS

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219Q

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 7.1, s 7.34

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 17

Hetherington v Assistant Commissioner of Queensland Police Service [2011] QCAT 82

Heuston v Horton [2024] QCAT 432
Heuston v Horton (No 2) [2025] QCAT 10

McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright [2011] QCATA 309

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Ms P Cardiff, Legal Representative for the Applicant

First Respondent:
Second Respondent

Ms H Lane, Senior Legal Officer for the First Respondent

No appearance for the Second Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Crime and Corruption Commission (the Applicant) has filed an Application in the Tribunal for a review of a disciplinary decision made on 8 July 2021 by Chief Superintendent Glenn Horton (the First Respondent) where he imposed a disciplinary sanction on Constable Christopher O’Connell. (the Second Respondent)
The Applicant submits that the disciplinary decision imposed is not the correct and preferable decision as it
(a)is inadequate;
(b)fails to meet the need for general and persona deterrence;
(c)does not reflect the seriousness of the Second Respondent’s conduct; and
(d)does not meet the purposes of disciplinary proceedings

Background Facts

There is common ground between the parties as to the relevant facts which occurred and resulted in the disciplinary decision and sanctions made in these proceedings. The parties filed in the Tribunal a “Statement of Agreed Facts”[1] The facts referred to below are from that document.
[1]Statement of Agreed Facts filed on 5 May 2022
In the period from 13 July 2029 to 29 September 2019 at…

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 Horton 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: [2025] QCAT 356
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crime and Corruption Commission v Horton involved the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and the internal discipline of its officers. The dispute centred on the actions of Christopher O’Connell, a junior female QPS officer, and the alleged misconduct of the Second Respondent, Glenn Horton. The Commission sought to set aside a disciplinary decision made by Chief Superintendent Horton and impose a harsher penalty on O’Connell. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had the authority to review and set aside a disciplinary decision made by a senior officer within the QPS, and whether the evidence supported a harsher penalty for O’Connell. The Commission argued that the disciplinary decision was flawed and that O’Connell should face a more severe penalty. Horton, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal should not interfere with the internal disciplinary process of the QPS.

The Tribunal found that it had the jurisdiction to review the disciplinary decision and concluded that the evidence supported a harsher penalty for O’Connell. The court held that the decision to demote O’Connell for six months and suspend such demotion after three months was insufficient given the gravity of the misconduct. The Tribunal set aside the original disciplinary decision and imposed a demotion of eighteen months instead. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining discipline and integrity within the QPS and the need to address misconduct appropriately.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered that the original disciplinary decision be set aside and substituted with a demotion of eighteen months for O’Connell. The court's decision underscored the importance of upholding the standards of conduct within the QPS and the Tribunal's role in ensuring that disciplinary decisions are fair and appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal Orders that:

(a) the decision on disciplinary action made by Chief Superintendent Glenn Horton on 8 July 2021 to demote Christopher O’Connell from Senior Constable 2.5 to Constable 1.6 for a period of six months and to suspend such demotion after three months, subject to no further acts of misconduct being substantiated against Christopher O’Connell relating to his conduct within the six month demotion period, is set-aside; and

(b) in substitution for the decision in (a) above, Christopher O’Connell is demoted from Senior Constable 2.5 to Constable 1.6 for a period of eighteen (18) months commencing on 8 July 2021.

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.