Crime and Misconduct Commission v Deputy Commissioner, Queensland Police Service

[2011] QCAT 687

CITATION: Crime and Misconduct Commission v  Deputy Commissioner, Queensland Police Service and Anor [2011] QCAT 687

PARTIES:	Crime and Misconduct Commission
v
Deputy Commissioner, Queensland Police Service Mr Paul Dalton

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR201-11

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 28 October 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     

[1]   The following items will be subject to a non-publication order:

a)     Notice of Formal Finding, page 4, paragraph 4: the name of the suspect.

b)     Notice of Formal Finding, page 4, paragraph 5: the name of the suspect.

c)     Findings and Reasons, page 18, paragraph 2: the names of the parties to the meeting with the informant. 

d)     Resumption of Disciplinary Hearing, page 5, paragraph 4: the name of the suspect. 

e)     Resumption of Disciplinary Hearing, page 5, paragraph 5: the name of the suspect.

CATCHWORDS:

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – where misconduct file publishes names of suspects – where no lawful finding against suspect – whether non-publication order appropriate

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 66

Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Crime and Misconduct Commission has filed an application to review a decision of Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart to reduce Sergeant Dalton’s salary from paypoint level 5 to paypoint level 1 for a period of 12 months.  Unsurprisingly, the material filed in support of the application includes: details of the charges against Sergeant Dalton; the Commissioner’s findings and reasons for decision; and parts of a transcript from the disciplinary hearing.

2. An examination of the supporting material reveals that Sergeant Dalton          was charged with being negligent in the operational management of an informant.  The material reveals the names of the targets of investigations by Sergeant Dalton through the use of his informant.  The material asserts that these individuals are associated with the drug trade.

3. Section 66(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 allows the tribunal to make a non-publication order on its own initiative.  Before making this order, the tribunal sought the views of the parties.  The parties agreed that the names of those under investigation should be de-identified because:

a)There is no lawful finding that these individuals are associated with drugs.

b)There is no public interest in releasing the names of these individuals.

c)The release of their names is defamatory and may lead to public humiliation and ridicule.

d)These people are unrelated third parties and the release of their names would not enhance the openness and accountability of public administration.

1. Section 66(2) states, relevantly, that the tribunal may make an order if it is necessary to:

   (b)  Avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person.

   (d)  Avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest.

   (e)  For any other reason in the interests of justice.

2. These factors must be considered against the tribunal’s principle of open justice and the President, Justice Wilson’s admonition that the discretion is not to be exercised lightly.[1]

   [1]        Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89.

3. There is no evidence before the tribunal that the people named as being targeted for investigation by Sergeant Dalton have been charged with any offence.  Publication of their names may expose them to unwarranted public speculation and scrutiny.  Further, publication of the names of the people targeted for investigation may impact any ongoing investigation by the Queensland Police.  Publication of those names should be prohibited.

4. The restriction of publication of these details will not prevent the fair and accurate reporting of the tribunal proceedings.  It will, however: afford protection to persons who health and safety may be at risk; protect any current investigations that Queensland Police may have in relation to any of these parties; and afford those parties some protection to their reputations until such time as there is an official charge of wrongdoing.

5. The following items will be subject to a non-publication order:

a)Notice of Formal Finding, page 4, paragraph 4: the name of the suspect.

b)Notice of Formal Finding, page 4, paragraph 5: the name of the suspect.

c)Findings and Reasons, page 18, paragraph 2: the names of the parties to the meeting with the informant.

d)Resumption of Disciplinary Hearing, page 5, paragraph 4: the name of the suspect.

e)Resumption of Disciplinary Hearing, page 5, paragraph 5: the name of the suspect.