DA v Deputy Commissioner Martin

CITATION:

DA v Deputy Commissioner Martin [2018] QCAT 10

PARTIES:

DA
(Applicant)

v

Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR008-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

DELIVERED ON:

15 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decisions of Deputy Commissioner Martin under review are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where officer pursued and collided with minor riding a motorcycle; used inappropriate language; and was untruthful in a discipline interview - where previous disciplinary history – consideration of appropriate sanction

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 19A, s 219H
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld),
s 1.4
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 3(c), s 20

Aldrich v Ross (2001) Qd R 235
Briginshaw v Briginshaw & Anor (1938) 60 CLR 336
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Assistant Commissioner Barnett and Eaton [2011] QCAT 161
DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart (No 2) [2013] QCATA 162
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

DA

RESPONDENT:

Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin

REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT:	DA appeared in person
RESPONDENT:	represented by Scott McLeod of Counsel instructed by the Queensland Police Service Legal Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Until his dismissal on disciplinary grounds, DA was a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service (QPS).

2. The Respondent Deputy Commissioner dismissed DA after making findings that DA:

   (a)drove a motor vehicle in a manner which recklessly exposed himself and other road users to unjustifiable risk of injury;

   (b)made inappropriate comments and remarks to a member of the public; and

   (c)was untruthful during a discipline interview.

3. The three findings are inter-related. The inappropriate remarks were uttered at the end of a pursuit in which the reckless driving in finding (a) occurred. The finding of untruthfulness relates to statements made by DA in the course of an interview about the reckless driving incident.

4. DA accepts findings (a) and (b). However, he has applied for review of finding (c) and of the sanction of dismissal.

5. The events that are the subject of the current proceedings occurred in early August 2014. In making his decision to dismiss DA, the Deputy Commissioner referred to earlier disciplinary history relating to conduct in 2007 and 2008.

Nature of review

1. The Tribunal’s review is by way of rehearing to produce the correct and preferable decision.[1]

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20.

2. The task of the Tribunal is to stand in the shoes of the Deputy Commissioner and make the decision afresh based on the evidence before the Deputy Commissioner.[2]

   [2]Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219H(1). Under s 219H(2), leave may be granted to adduce fresh, additional or substituted evidence. No such leave was not sought.

3. The evidence before the Deputy Commissioner included transcripts of disciplinary interviews, statements of various witnesses, photographs and audio and video recordings.

4. Because they will be relevant to the question of sanction, it is…