Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read
CITATION: Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor [2011] QCAT 229
PARTIES: Crime and Misconduct Commission
v
Steven Chapman
(First Respondent)
Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson
(Second Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR030-11
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Mr James Thomas AM QC, Member
DELIVERED ON: 25 May 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:    

It is ordered that the time for the making of the application in the present matter be extended to the date upon which the application was filed with QCAT.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME – where Applicant sought short extension of time – circumstances and reasons when appropriate to grant extension

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 61
Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, s 219(G)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The matter was heard and determined on the papers under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. Written submissions were received from the Applicant, the Crime and Misconduct Commission; from Mr Calvin Grech, Solicitor, Queensland Police Union of Employees on behalf of the first Respondent and Ms Christina Heffner, Solicitor from the Office of Queensland Police Service Solicitor.

REASONS FOR DECISION

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

  1. This is an application by the CMC for an extension of time for the making of an application to review the second Respondent’s decision in disciplinary proceedings against the first Respondent.

  2. Under section 219(G) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, which is the enabling Act for proceedings of the present kind, an application is required to be made within 14 days after the day on which notice of the decision or finding was given. However under section 61(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the Tribunal has the power to “extend a time limit fixed for the start of a proceeding by this Act or and enabling Act”.

The present application was filed with QCAT on 17 February 2011 which was one day late.

CIRCUMSTANCES

  1. This is one of four interconnected disciplinary matters arising out of an incident in the Nerang district on 16 June 2006 which involved a police pursuit of a motorcycle ending in a death.  The four officers against whom the proceedings were brought were Sergeant CP McLoughlin, Senior Constable Hilton Buckley, Constable Shayne Webley and the present Respondent Steven Chapman.  Various charges were brought, ranging from failure to observe police policy concerning pursuits to the giving of untruthful statements to investigators.

  2. In the result, the decision maker Assistant Commissioner Paul Wilson –

    a.    Found that misconduct was not established against Sergeant McLoughlin.

    b.    Found that misconduct was not substantiated against Constable Webley.

    c.    Found that misconduct was not substantiated against Senior Constable Buckley.

    d.    Found that two particulars of misconduct were substantiated against Constable Chapman, and imposed a sanction of two penalty units for each matter.

  3. On 2 February 2011 the CMC was given notice of all four decisions of which it now seeks review.  The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman & Anor 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
[2011] QCAT 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crime and Misconduct Commission versus Chapman and another was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Crime and Misconduct Commission sought an extension of time for making an application in a disciplinary matter against Chapman, the second respondent. The primary reason for the extension was due to delays in the administrative process and the Commission's reliance on external legal advice. The second respondent, Chapman, opposed the extension, arguing that the Commission's delay was not excusable and that it would cause undue prejudice.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the Tribunal had the discretion to grant an extension of time and, if so, whether the circumstances of this case warranted such an extension. The Tribunal had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and whether the Commission's delay was excusable. It also had to assess the potential prejudice to the respondents if the extension was granted.

The Tribunal found that it had the discretion to grant an extension of time under the relevant legislation. It considered the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to grant an extension, including the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the potential prejudice to the respondents. The Tribunal noted that the delay in this case was not due to any fault of the Commission but rather due to administrative delays and the need to rely on external legal advice. The Tribunal also found that the potential prejudice to the respondents was minimal as the application was still within a reasonable timeframe and the respondents had not been significantly inconvenienced. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal decided to grant the extension of time. The Tribunal ordered that the time for making the application be extended to the date upon which the application was filed with the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is ordered that the time for the making of the application in the present matter be extended to the date upon which the application was filed with QCAT.

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.