Crime and Misconduct Commission v Rynders - [2010] QCAT 187

CITATION:

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Rynders & Anor [2010] QCAT 187

PARTIES:	Crime and Misconduct Commission - applicant
v
Deputy Commissioner Kathy RYNDERS – first respondent and Sergeant Damien CHAPMAN – second respondent

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR015-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

C Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The time limit for the start of this proceeding is extended to 19 January 2010.

CATCHWORDS :

Extension of time – sections 6(4), 6(7), 7(2) and 61 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 – section 219G of Crime and Misconduct Act 2001

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties.

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 24 December 2009 the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ethical Standards Command, containing information that disciplinary proceedings against Sergeant Damien Chapman had been finalised on 18 December 2009 by Deputy Commissioner Rynders with a finding that the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated.
Due to on duty staff within the CMC being rostered to deal with urgent complaints over the Christmas holiday period when the majority of staff were on holidays, it was not until 4 January 2010 that the CMC determined that the decision to finalise the disciplinary proceedings against Sergeant Chapman warranted further examination.
On 19 January 2010 the CMC filed an application in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to seek a review of the decision made by Deputy Commissioner Rynders in the disciplinary proceedings against Sergeant Chapman. On 12 February 2010 the CMC filed an application with the Tribunal seeking an extension of time in which to start the review proceedings.
Submissions on the extension of time application have been lodged with the Tribunal by the applicant and both respondents in accordance with directions of the Tribunal and the application is to be determined on the papers.

THE LEGISLATION

From 1 December 2009 QCAT has power to review decisions made in relation to an allegation of misconduct under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Section 219G (1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 provides as follows: The commission or a prescribed person against whom a reviewable decision has been made may apply, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) and otherwise as provided under the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a review of the reviewable decision.
In this case, section 219G (2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 provides that the application for review must be made within 14 days of the day when notice of the decision was given.
Under section 33(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act), an application for review must be filed in QCAT within 28 days after the applicant is notified of the decision sought to be reviewed.
Section 6(4) of the QCAT Act provides that an enabling Act conferring review jurisdiction on QCAT…

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 Misconduct Commission v Rynders 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: [2010] QCAT 187
Decision Date: 28 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crime and Misconduct Commission v Rynders involved the Commission bringing proceedings against Rynders under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. The dispute centred around the Commission's request for an extension of time to commence the legal action. This request was made under sections 6(4), 6(7), 7(2), and 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, as well as section 219G of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. The court was tasked with determining whether the Commission's application for an extension of time was justified and should be granted.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the Commission had provided sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time under the specified sections of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 and the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. The court considered the arguments put forth by both parties, including the Commission's explanation for the delay and any potential prejudice that might result from the extension. The court also examined whether the statutory provisions were applicable and if they provided the necessary flexibility to accommodate the Commission's request.

In its judgment, the court found that the Commission had demonstrated adequate reasons for the delay in commencing the proceedings. The court acknowledged the complexities involved in the case and the need for additional time to properly prepare and present the case. As a result, the court granted the Commission's application for an extension, setting the new commencement date for the proceeding as 19 January 2010. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the need for procedural fairness with the statutory requirements and the interests of justice.

The court's decision was definitive, and the extension was granted accordingly. The time limit for the start of the proceeding was thus extended to 19 January 2010, allowing the Commission to adequately prepare and present its case against Rynders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The time limit for the start of this proceeding is extended to 19 January 2010.

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.