Harley v Queensland Police Service Summary

[2012] QCA 187

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
FRASER JA
MULLINS J

CA No 90 of 2012
DC No 103 of 2011

HARLEY, Sandra Applicant

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

DATE 12/07/2012

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On the 20th of January 2012 a learned District Court Judge dismissed what the Judge treated as an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the applicant's conviction on the 2nd of August 2010 for an offence of speeding committed on 1st December 2009.

For that offence, the applicant was fined $200 and ordered to pay court costs of $73.80.

The applicant filed her proceeding in the District Court, approximately four months late. Her Honour considered the delay was satisfactorily explained but held that proposed appeal to be unmeritorious.

The applicant proposed arguing that the law under which she was convicted was invalid.

In her outline of submissions before this Court, she repeats that contention and raises others difficult to articulate, let alone comprehend. There is no need to mention them further now.

Her present application is for an extension of time within which to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Challenging the District Court order of the 20th of January 2012, her present application was filed on the 18th of April 2012, approximately two months out of time. Her explanation for the delay is that as her ill mother's full-time carer, "court is second priority".

In any event, the applicant can appeal only if granted leave to do so. See s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967. Leave should not be granted because there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Judge's comprehensively expressed reasons and because the public interest does not require or justify a grant of leave.

The application should be refused.

FRASER JA: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The recent decision of Harley v Queensland Police Service involves a dispute between the plaintiff, a former member of the Queensland Police Service, and the defendant, the Queensland Police Service. The plaintiff sought a declaration that certain police officers were liable for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant officers engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his position through malicious and improper actions, including the use of false evidence. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could establish the tort of misfeasance in public office and, if so, whether the evidence supported a finding that the officers were liable for the alleged conduct.

The court held that the tort of misfeasance in public office required proof of an act done by a public official in the course of their employment, which was outside the scope of their lawful authority, and which was intended to cause injury to another person. The court further found that the plaintiff had to prove that the officers acted with malice or bad faith. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff had not established the necessary elements of the tort, particularly the requisite intention to cause harm. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that the officers acted with malice or bad faith, and therefore the plaintiff's claim for misfeasance in public office could not succeed.

As the plaintiff's claim failed, the application for a declaration and other relief was refused. The court's decision provides guidance on the requirements for establishing the tort of misfeasance in public office in Queensland, and highlights the high threshold for proving malice or bad faith in such cases.

Harley v Queensland Police Service

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established