DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read
CITATION: DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart (No 2) [2013] QCATA 162
PARTIES: DA
(Appellant)
v
Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL047-11
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: 22 May 2013
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Judge Fleur Kingham
Joanne Browne, Member
DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2013
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision made by the respondent on 2 February 2010 in relation to matters 1, 2 and 4 that those charges are substantiated is confirmed.

2.    DA is suspended from the Queensland Police Service for 18 months effective from 2 February 2010.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where decision of the appeal tribunal contained in paragraphs 3(iv) and 3(iii) were set aside – where matter remitted to the appeal tribunal to determine sanction – where fresh evidence relates to credibility and circumstances of conduct – where evidence of rehabilitation and credit – where appropriate sanction to be determined.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – POLICE OFFICER – MISCONDUCT – whether matters relevant to determine sanction.

Crime and Misconduct Act 2000 (Qld), ss 219A, 219B, 219BA, 219C & Schedule 2.
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), ss 1.3, 1.4, 7.2(1), (2A)(b) & 7A.5(1)(b).

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 146,147 & 194A.

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235, cited.

DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCAT 102, cited.

DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCATA 359, cited.

Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark [2012] QCA 228, applied.

Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart [2012] QCAT 066, cited.

McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Wright [2011] QCATA 309, cited.

Ottaway v Commissioner of Police (Unreported, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Mr P Richards (Member) 15 March 2013) cited.

Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279, cited.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT: Mr P Flanagan QC, of Counsel, instructed by Gilshenan & Luton.
RESPONDENT: Mr S McLeod, of Counsel, instructed by the Office of the Queensland Police Service Solicitor.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. DA was subject to disciplinary proceedings regarding conduct when he was a police constable. This Appeal Tribunal published its decision on an appeal from a member of QCAT on 9 December 2011.[1] On 24 August 2012, the Court of Appeal set aside the Appeal Tribunal’s finding on one allegation of misconduct and remitted the matter to the Appeal Tribunal for reconsideration of sanction.[2]

  2. The Appeal Tribunal has resumed these proceedings, constituted for this stage as it was for the original hearing, although one of its members, Judge Kingham, is no longer a member of QCAT. The parties were consulted on the constitution of the panel and did not object to this course. As they have not yet concluded, Judge Kingham is deemed to continue as a member of QCAT for the purpose of these proceedings.[3]

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart (No 2) 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
[2013] QCATA 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart (No 2) involved an appeal by a police officer, DA, against a disciplinary decision by the Deputy Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service. The dispute centred on the substantiation of misconduct charges against DA and the appropriate sanction following the substantiation of these charges. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appeal tribunal's decision to substantiate certain misconduct charges against DA was correct, and if so, what the appropriate sanction should be. The court was required to determine whether the tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether the imposed sanction was commensurate with the established misconduct.

The court found that the appeal tribunal's decision to substantiate the misconduct charges was legally sound and accordingly confirmed this part of the decision. Regarding the sanction, the court determined that the tribunal had not adequately considered fresh evidence relating to DA's rehabilitation and the circumstances of the conduct. The court held that this fresh evidence was relevant to the determination of the appropriate sanction and should have been considered. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the appeal tribunal to reassess the sanction in light of this fresh evidence.

The court's orders confirmed the substantiation of the misconduct charges and suspended DA from the Queensland Police Service for 18 months, effective from the date of the tribunal's original decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision made by the respondent on 2 February 2010 in relation to matters 1, 2 and 4 that those charges are substantiated is confirmed.

2. DA is suspended from the Queensland Police Service for 18 months effective from 2 February 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.