Crime and Corruption Commission v Shearer - [2024] QCAT 523

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Crime and Corruption Commission v Shearer [2024] QCAT 523

PARTIES:

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(applicant)

v

NAOMI C’ANN SHEARER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR024-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1. It is ordered that no disciplinary declaration is made.

2. The non-publication application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where Crime and Corruption Commission referred application for a finding of corrupt conduct – where respondent pleaded guilty to refusal by public officer to perform duty – where only one charged was deemed to be corrupt conduct in initial hearing – where sanction to be determined by way of subsequent hearing – where respondent no longer a part of Queensland Police Service – whether parity principle applies to police officers in regard to tenure or rank – whether legislation as at date of the referral of proceedings or as at date of hearing to be relied upon – whether a discipline declaration can be made against a former police officer

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) s 15, s 219I, s 219IA

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) s 2.3AA, s 7.1, s 10.1
Police Service Administration (Discipline Reform) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66

Compton v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 384

Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee (No2) [2019] QCATA 151
Crime and Corruption Commission v Wright and Waller [2021] QCAT 304
Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89
Earthquake Commission v Krieger [2014] NZLR 547
Fletcher v Queensland Nursing Council [2009] QCA 364
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industry (1986) 72 ALR 23
Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission; Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2020] QCA 201
McNab Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCA 380
Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298

R v Hurst [2014] QCA 168

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

P Price, Principal Lawyer, Crime and Corruption Commission

Respondent:

J R Hunter KC, instructed by Gnech and Associates Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 24 January 2020 the Crime and Corruption Commission (‘CCC’) applied to the Tribunal for a finding that disciplinary charges of corrupt conduct against Naomi C’Ann Shearer are proved and that a sanction of dismissal from employment as a Queensland Police Officer should be imposed. Three charges were raised against Ms Shearer.
On 5 December 2018 then Detective Senior Constable Shearer pleaded guilty to an offence of Refusal by a Public Officer to Perform Duty.
The offence arose out of an event on 27 July 2016 when Ms Shearer engaged in conduct which she acknowledged was a cause of a breath test not being conducted by other police officers, in respect of a driver who was a Victoria police officer on…

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 Shearer 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: [2024] QCAT 523
Decision Date: 19 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crime and Corruption Commission v Shearer, the Crime and Corruption Commission sought a disciplinary declaration against the respondent, a former police officer, for corrupt conduct. The Commission referred the matter to the court after the respondent pleaded guilty to refusing to perform a duty as a public officer. The respondent was no longer part of the Queensland Police Service at the time of the hearing. The primary issue before the court was whether the parity principle applies to police officers in relation to tenure or rank, and if the legislation as it stood at the date of the referral of proceedings or the date of the hearing should be relied upon. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a disciplinary declaration could be made against a former police officer.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and found that the parity principle does apply to police officers in relation to tenure or rank. The court held that the legislation as it stood at the date of the referral of proceedings should be relied upon. The court also found that a disciplinary declaration could not be made against a former police officer. Consequently, the court ordered that no disciplinary declaration be made, and the application for non-publication was refused. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to the correct legislative framework when dealing with disciplinary matters involving former police officers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is ordered that no disciplinary declaration is made.

2. The non-publication application is refused.

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.