Gunter v Assistant Commissioner Wilkins

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Gunter v Assistant Commissioner Wilkins [2019] QCAT 410

PARTIES:

JOSHUA GUNTER

(applicant)

v

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BRIAN J WILKINS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR114-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2019 (orally)

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

1.   The reviewable decision is set aside and a decision substituted that matter 1 set out in the disciplinary proceedings notice dated 23 November 2018 is not substantiated.

2.   The publication of:

(a)    the names of the persons whose information was accessed by the applicant on QPRIME and of the construction firm which undertook the renovation of the applicant’s home, and of any information that would identify those persons or that firm; and

(b)   the residential address of the applicant;

is prohibited.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where police officer accessed personal information on police database – whether access improper

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219H

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4, s 2.3, s 4.9

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	T E Schmidt instructed by Gnech and Associates
Respondent:	M Nicolson instructed by Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Member Kanowski: The Tribunal in this proceeding is reviewing a disciplinary decision made by the Assistant Commissioner on 11 April 2019.  He decided that the applicant, Sergeant Gunter, had engaged in misconduct between 9 November 2016 and 16 February 2017 that was improper in that he accessed confidential information contained in the Queensland Police Service computer system without an official purpose related to the performance of his duties as a member of the Queensland Police Service.

2. Sergeant Gunter has applied to the tribunal for a review of that decision. 

3. I note that Assistant Commissioner Wilkins also imposed a sanction for the misconduct that he found, but review is not sought in the current proceeding of that sanction. 

4. The documents before the tribunal consisted of documents numbered up to page 365 plus some additional documents, S1 to S58, which I allowed as additional evidence under section 219H of the Crime and Corruption Act for reasons that I gave in the course of the hearing. 

5. ‘Misconduct’ is defined in the Police Service Administration Act section 1.4 as, amongst other things, conduct that is improper. The Commissioner has issued a Standard of Practice for Professional Conduct identified as 2012/33, which includes a section, section 16, on the improper use of QPS information.  To paraphrase, it notes that officers have access to many sources of information, some of which is confidential, and there is accountability and trust required, and so there is no excuse for members to betray the public trust by making any unauthorised, improper or unlawful access or use of any official or confidential information available to them.  Of particular significance, the section says:

   When dealing with official or confidential information…