| CITATION: | Hearn v Assistant Commissioner Carroll [2012] QCAT 412 |
| PARTIES: | Logan Hearn |
| v | |
| Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR001-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 23 July 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Margaret McLennan, Member Jeremy Gordon, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 4 September 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision is confirmed. 2. The following is subject to non-publication: a) the identity, other than the applicant and the respondent, of the complainant and two officers involved in the arrest of the complainant at the Treasury Casino on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material; b) police officers connected with the detention of the complainant at the Brisbane watch house on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material; c) the images depicted on all CCTV footage from both the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house ; and d) the photographs (or copies) depicting the face and injuries of the complainant. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Minimum force – excessive force – disciplinary reprimand Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 66 Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990, s 9(1)(f) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Troy Schmidt instructed by the Office of Queensland Police Union Solicitor |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Michael Nicolson instructed by the Queensland Police Service Solicitor |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (tribunal) stamped as lodged[1] on 3 January 2012 to review a decision made on 14 December 2011 by Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll (the respondent). It was in relation to a disciplinary hearing which commenced 22 October 2010 and concluded on 14 December 2011.
[1] Lodged electronically on 23 December 2011.
Constable Logan Hearn (applicant, Hearn) was charged as follows:
“Matter 1
That on the 17th day of February 2008 at Brisbane your conduct was improper in that you:
(a) used excessive force against GM.
[Section 1.4 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (‘PSAA’), section 9(1)(f) Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (‘PS(D)R’)]
Further and better particulars:
Investigations have established that at approximately 2.30am on 17 February 2008 in the vicinity of…
Continue reading Hearn v Assistant Commissioner Carroll
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hearn v Assistant Commissioner Carroll [2012] QCAT 412
- Case
- [2012] QCAT 412
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the disciplinary reprimand imposed on Hearn was lawful and justified. The court considered the evidence presented, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and medical reports, and found that Hearn used excessive force during the arrest. The court held that the use of force was not justified in the circumstances and that Hearn's actions amounted to misconduct. The court also found that the disciplinary reprimand was proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct and did not amount to an unlawful punishment. The court dismissed the review application and confirmed the decision of the respondent.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the respondent is confirmed and that certain information is subject to non-publication. This includes the identity of the complainant and two officers involved in the arrest, police officers connected with the detention of the complainant at the Brisbane watch house, CCTV footage from the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house, and photographs depicting the face and injuries of the complainant. These orders reflect the court's consideration of the need for privacy and confidentiality in relation to the complainant and the police officers involved in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision is confirmed.
2. The following is subject to non-publication:
a) the identity, other than the applicant and the respondent, of the complainant and two officers involved in the arrest of the complainant at the Treasury Casino on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material;
b) police officers connected with the detention of the complainant at the Brisbane watch house on the night of 17 February 2008 and who are named in the file material;
c) the images depicted on all CCTV footage from both the Treasury Casino and the Brisbane watch house ; and
d) the photographs (or copies) depicting the face and injuries of the complainant.
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.