Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee (No 2)

In the matter of Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee (No 2), the Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which had set aside a finding of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and substituted a decision that the respondent had engaged in corrupt conduct under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The Commission had sought to have the respondent dismissed from their position, while the respondent argued for a probationary sanction. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Appeal Tribunal had the authority to impose a sanction and whether the question of sanction should be remitted back to the Senior Member who constituted the Tribunal at first instance.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold: firstly, whether the powers conferred upon QCAT by Chapter 5 Part 2 Division 4 of the CC Act permitted the Appeal Tribunal to make sanction orders, and secondly, whether the appropriate sanction in this case was dismissal, probation, or some other form of sanction under s 219I of the CC Act. The Court of Appeal had to determine the scope of the Appeal Tribunal's powers and the appropriate sanction for the respondent's corrupt conduct.

The Court of Appeal found that the Appeal Tribunal did have the authority to make sanction orders as they were empowered by the QCAT Act to hear appeals from QCAT decisions and could substitute or affirm the original decision. The Court held that the Appeal Tribunal was not restricted to merely affirming or setting aside the original decision but could also impose sanctions. The Court further held that the appropriate sanction in this case was a probationary order for a period of 12 months. The Court considered that a probationary sanction was appropriate given the respondent's otherwise unblemished service record and the nature of the corrupt conduct. The Court noted that the decision on the appropriate sanction was within the discretion of the Appeal Tribunal and that the Commission's submission for dismissal was not the only appropriate outcome.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 12 months from 25 November 2019. The Court also directed that counsel for the parties bring in an agreed form of probation order. If the parties could not agree, the matter would be listed for a further hearing to settle the terms of the probation order. This outcome balanced the need for accountability with the respondent's professional standing and service record.