Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee - [2017] QCAT 483

CITATION:	Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2017] QCAT 483
PARTIES:	Crime and Corruption Commission (Applicant)
v
Anthony William Lee (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR096-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATES:	21, 22, 24 March 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member O’Callaghan
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The application for disciplinary orders is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLIC SERVICE – DUTIES AND OFFENCES IN RELATION TO OFFICE – OFFENCES – CORRUPTION – where the Crime and Corruption Commission has brought application for a finding of corrupt conduct – whether corrupt conduct has been proved Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 50, s 219I Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, at 361-363 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. ASIC v Flugge and Geary [2016] VSC 779 at [880]. Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2014] QCATA 326. Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2015] QSC 226. Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2016] QCA 145 Hurley v Clements [2010] 1 Qd R 215.
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATIVES
APPLICANT:	Fordham M, SC and Mac Giolla Ri E, of counsel, instructed by the Crime and Corruption Commission
RESPONDENT:	Hunter J, QC, instructed by the Queesland Police Union Legal Group for Anthony William Lee

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Sergeant Lee has been a member of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) since 1989. In 2008, he held a senior position as Senior Sergeant in charge of the Mackay Child Protection Investigation Unit. In January 2008, he was tasked to conduct a preliminary inquiry into an alleged use of excessive force/assault by Senior Constable Price against Renee Toms in the course of arresting her at the Whitsunday watch-house. Senior Sergeant Lee’s conduct in conducting the investigation has been the subject of Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) investigation, disciplinary action, review proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), appeal proceedings in QCAT and proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. In these most recent proceedings the CCC seek a finding that Senior Sergeant Lee’s conduct is corrupt conduct and he should be dismissed.

Background

On 18 January 2008, Renee Toms made a complaint to the QPS alleging that during her arrest she was subjected to excessive force by Senior Constable Benjamin Price at the Whitsunday watch-house.
On 21 January 2008, Lee was assigned the task of conducting a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.
The conduct of Price was recorded by Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in the watch-house. Lee was given the video as part of his task to conduct the inquiry.
There is factual dispute about certain aspects of Lee’s investigation which are discussed below.
On 26 February 2008, Lee emailed a preliminary report to the Professional Practice Manager (PPM),[1] in which he recorded details of inquiries he had made to date. He noted unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms Toms, his conversations with Price and that he had viewed the video footage which corroborated…

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 Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee

Details

AGLC: Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2017] QCAT 483
Case: [2017] QCAT 483
Decision Date: 22 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crime and Corruption Commission brought an application seeking a finding of corrupt conduct against a former public official, Mr Lee, under section 139A of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001. The application was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the focus was on whether Mr Lee's conduct met the statutory criteria for corrupt conduct, specifically whether he engaged in dishonest misconduct in relation to his public office. The primary judge had found that Mr Lee was guilty of corrupt conduct, a finding that Mr Lee sought to overturn in the appeal.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the term "dishonest misconduct" under the statute and whether the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented demonstrated that Mr Lee engaged in misconduct that was dishonest and related to his public office. Another issue was the extent to which the primary judge's findings of fact were open to challenge on appeal, particularly in light of the substantial evidence presented at the trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in concluding that Mr Lee was guilty of corrupt conduct. The court held that the misconduct did not meet the threshold of dishonesty required by the statute, as it found that Mr Lee's actions, while improper, were not dishonest in the sense required by the law. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish that Mr Lee acted with the requisite level of dishonesty, and therefore the primary judge's finding of corrupt conduct could not stand. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the application for disciplinary orders was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for disciplinary orders is dismissed.

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.