Crime and Corruption Commission v Walker

Case [2021] QCAT 66

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Crime and Corruption Commission v Walker [2021] QCAT 66
PARTIES: CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(applicant)

v
JAMES ALEXANDER WALKER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR305-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2021

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, BY CONSENT, THAT:

It is declared that James Alexander Walker engaged in corrupt conduct pursuant to s 15 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) and were he still employed by the Queensland Police Service a sanction of dismissal would have been imposed.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT – corrupt conduct – where the Crime and Corruption Commission referred application for a finding of corrupt conduct – where respondent was a former member of the Queensland Police Service – where agreed schedule of facts – where parties agree as to sanction imposed – whether corrupt conduct has been proven – whether sanction of dismissal would have been imposed if the respondent were still employed by the Queensland Police Service

Crime andCorruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 15, s 50, s 219B,
s 219F, s 219I, s 219IA(3), s 450

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(1), s 125

Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169

Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee (No 2) [2019] QCATA 151
Gee v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 33
Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission; Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2020] QCA 201

Wadham v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 578

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

E Mac Giolla Ri instructed by the Crime and Corruption Commission

Respondent:

A Edwards instructed by Gnech and Associates

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The Crime and Corruption Commissioner (‘the Commission’) commenced disciplinary proceedings for corrupt conduct against James Alexander Walker, a former member of the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’).[1]  

    [1]Amended application or referral – disciplinary proceedings filed 18 September 2020 pursuant to s 50 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (‘the Act’).

  2. At the commencement of the oral hearing before the Tribunal, the parties filed an agreed schedule of facts and confirmed that the Tribunal should accept the particulars of the charge as outlined in the agreed schedule of facts.[2] The parties also agreed as to the wording of the proposed orders to be made by the Tribunal upon a finding of corrupt conduct.

    [2]Submissions on behalf of the applicant filed 3 February 2021 and agreed schedule of facts filed by consent on 3 February 2021.

  3. The issue before me now is whether I am satisfied that Mr Walker engaged in corrupt conduct and, if so, whether an appropriate sanction in all of the circumstances is dismissal.

  4. Mr Walker accepts that he engaged in corrupt conduct and that were he still employed by the QPS a sanction of dismissal would have been imposed.[3] If the Tribunal finds corrupt conduct proved against a ‘prescribed person’ that is a former member…

Continue reading Crime and Corruption Commission v Walker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Crime and Corruption Commission v Walker [2021] QCAT 66
Case
[2021] QCAT 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Crime and Corruption Commission v Walker, the respondent, James Alexander Walker, was a former police officer who was charged with corrupt conduct. The dispute arose from Walker's interactions with a person known as [NE], with whom Walker had a prior relationship that created a conflict of interest. Walker drove [NE] and his girlfriend home after their release from police custody, offered to assist [NE] with legal matters, and did not disclose his prior relationship with [NE] to his shift supervisor. Walker also failed to report information from another individual that [NE] was involved in drug dealing, despite knowing about [NE]'s prior police attention and the serious nature of the allegations.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether Walker's conduct amounted to a disciplinary breach, whether his actions were intentional and not impartial, and whether they involved a breach of the trust placed in him as a police officer. The court also had to consider whether Walker intended to benefit [NE] and whether his failure to properly deal with the information from the other individual protected [NE] from further investigation.

The court found that Walker's conduct amounted to a disciplinary breach and provided reasonable grounds for terminating his services. The court held that Walker's failure to disclose his prior relationship with [NE] and his failure to report the information from the other individual were intentional and not impartial. The court also found that Walker's conduct involved a breach of the trust placed in him as a police officer, as he used his position to provide [NE] with information that had the potential to benefit him. The court concluded that Walker's conduct was a misuse of the information he had received and that he intended to benefit [NE] by providing him with information that could have allowed him to cease criminal activity prior to detection or dispose of evidence.

The court ordered that James Alexander Walker's services be terminated, effective from 24 April 2020. The court also found that Walker's conduct amounted to a disciplinary breach providing reasonable grounds for terminating his services.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The agreed schedule of facts setting out the relevant particulars of the charge are now set out below as follows:AGREED SCHEDULE OF FACTS – DISCIPLINARY CHARGE OF CORRUPT CONDUCT(a) Walker and [NE] met at [redacted] located in [redacted]. At some point prior to 19 October 2014, Walker's relationship with [NE] was such that Walker had a conflict of interest in any police matter where [NE] was a suspect, however it is not suggested that Walker and [NE] were ever more than [redacted] acquaintances or that Walker was ever aware that [NE] was in fact involved in dealing drugs.(b) In the late hours of 19 October 2014, QPS officers executed a search warrant at [NE’s] residence, which resulted in [NE] and his girlfriend [FM] being transported to [redacted] station. They were released in the early hours of 20 October 2014.(c) Upon leaving [redacted] police station, [NE] saw Walker and the two had a conversation. This resulted in Walker offering to drive [NE] and [FM] home; he did so, in an unmarked police vehicle. [NE] asked for Walker’s assistance in the charge and court process, telling Walker he had not had contact with police before. Walker agreed to give that assistance as a friend.(d) When asking his shift supervisor for permission to drive [NE] and his girlfriend home, Walker did not disclose his prior relationship with [NE]. (e) Given [NE’s] request for further advice, once they had reached [NE’s] residence Walker gave [NE] his business card, with contact details on it.(f) Approximately one week after the search warrant was executed, [NE] rang Walker and they discussed the search but in no more than terms which suggested that the search had upset [NE] and his girlfriend.(g) The obvious seriousness of [NE’s] position as known to Mr Walker from 20 October 2014 onwards, was.:(i)[NE’s] premises had been searched on foot of a warrant.(ii)A warrant can only issue where the issuing individual and the QPS officers applying for the warrant, believed there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence relating to a crime would be at a place;(iii)Walker was aware that the 5-6 QPS officers involved with [NE] at [redacted] station were not local police. The number and origin of the officers involved should have indicated to Walker that [NE] was suspected of reasonably serious conduct;(iv)[NE] was charged with a relatively minor possession of steroids charge as a result of the search.(h) Despite the information at (g), above, Mr Walker indicated a willingness to assist [NE] with advice as to the process related to the charge. [NE] maintained, when talking to Walker that he was not involved in any criminal activity other than perhaps possession of some steroids for personal use. Walker accepted [NE’s] assurances.(i) On 30 October 2014, Walker arrested a person known for the purposes of these proceedings as ‘John Smith’ on an unrelated matter. Smith was found to have what appeared to be the drug 'ice' in a plastic bag in his pocket. Smith was transported to the [redacted] police station, where Smith told Walker that [NE] was the person who supplied him with the ice.(j) In light of Walker's prior association with [NE], Walker was obliged to refer Smith’s information about [NE] to his supervisor or another officer but did not do so. Walker later, in an interview, accepted that he should have done so, but explained that he thought Smith and any information he had given was completely unreliable, and that he believed that [NE] was not involved in drug dealing at all.(k) Not having declared his conflict of interest and in light of the information about [NE] available to Walker, the information received from Smith was such that Walker, as a police officer, was required to:(i)Fully explore Smith’s information with Smith with a view to obtaining the fullest and most useful information possible from him;(ii)Make a written or electronic note of the information;(iii)Conduct further investigations into the matter himself or cause further investigation to occur; and(iv)Update the appropriate police system to include the information and/or alert his supervisors and colleagues to the Information.(l) Walker did not take any required action on 30 October 2014 or thereafter in relation to the information from Smith that [NE] had supplied him with 'ice'.(m) Coincidentally, [NE] telephoned Walker on 30 October 2014. During that call Walker:(i)Told [NE] that someone in police custody at that moment was saying that [NE] supplied drugs;(ii)Identified the approximate location where that person had been picked up;(iii)Indicated to [NE] that he did not believe what the person was saying telling [NE] “I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but mate he’s throwing your fucking name around-dealing and all sorts of shit. I know you got fucking rolled over last week”.(iv)Arranged to meet [NE] to talk to him about the situation.(n) Walker had a face to face conversation with [NE] at the [redacted] the following day. Walker said in a subsequent disciplinary interview that it was only during this conversation that he finally formed an adverse view of [NE]. Despite this, Walker did not take any appropriate action to follow up Smith’s information, even after this conversation, including that he did not provide an intelligence report on the information he had been given. He did, however from that point in time cut all contact with [NE], despite several subsequent text messages from [NE] attempting to maintain contact. (o) From what Walker had told [NE], he was able to work out that it was Smith who gave him (Walker) the information that [NE] was selling drugs. Walker was the only person who had this information.(p) It is alleged that Walker's conduct was intentional, not impartial, and involved a breach of the trust that was placed in him as a serving police officer. It was also a misuse of the information he had received.(q) It is alleged that Walker intended to benefit [NE] in the following ways:a.The information provided to [NE] on 30 October 2014 informed him that a person in custody was alleging that he was a drug dealer against the background of [NE] having already been the subject of police attention. Whilst it is not alleged that Walker knew [NE] was a drug dealer, he provided that information to [NE] to do with as he chose. Although there is no evidence that it had any effect, it had the potential to have given [NE] the opportunity to cease criminal activity prior to detection and/or dispose of evidence, advised him that one of his customers was not to be trusted, or, alternatively, advised [NE] that false information was being revealed to the police about him;b.Whether or not Walker believed Smith’s information, his failure to properly deal with Smith’s information protected [NE] from further investigation and/or reduced the effectiveness of further investigation into him.(r) It is accepted that Walker’s conduct amounted to a disciplinary breach providing reasonable grounds for terminating James Alexander Walker's services.(s) James Alexander Walker became a police officer on 30 June 2008 and ceased to be a police officer on 24 April 2020.

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.