Heuston v Horton

[2024] QCAT 432

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Heuston v Horton  [2024] QCAT 432

PARTIES:

JARRED HEUSTON

(applicant)

v

GLENN HORTON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR232-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

16 September 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     The decision of the respondent, dated 14 May 2021, that the two disciplinary matters involving the applicant were substantiated, is confirmed. 

2.     The further hearing of the review, to deal with the challenge to the sanction imposed, is adjourned to a date to be fixed.  

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS — QUEENSLAND CIVIL ANDADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL — review of decision in police disciplinary matter — nature of review — whether respondent erred in drawing inference that applicant provided false information knowingly

POLICE — INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION — DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT — QUEENSLAND — Review of decision by Tribunal — nature of review – whether respondent erred in drawing inference that applicant provided false information knowingly

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) s 219H, s 219Q

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
King v Martin [2017] QCAT 291
MAM Mortgages Ltd v Cameron Brothers [2002] QCA 330
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
O’Keefe v Pointing [2017] QCAT 299
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Willmott v Carless [2024] QCA 115

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	C R Gnech solicitor of Gnech and Associates
Respondent:	S A McLeod KC instructed by the Queensland Police Service solicitor.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is in form the review by the Tribunal of certain disciplinary action taken against the applicant, a serving police officer, by the respondent.[1] On 14 May 2021 the respondent, then Acting Assistant Commissioner, made two disciplinary findings against the applicant pursuant to Part 7 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld). After receiving submissions as to sanction, on 2 July 2021 the respondent imposed a certain sanction on the applicant. On 2 August 2021 the applicant filed in the Tribunal an application to review those decisions.

   [1]For my convenience I shall refer to Senior Constable Heuston as the applicant and to Chief Superintendent Horton as the respondent. 

2. A Police disciplinary decision is subject to review by the Tribunal under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) s 219H. Although described as a review, this has been held by the Court of Appeal to be in substance an appeal by way of rehearing, on the evidence before the decision maker, and any fresh evidence admitted under s 219Q(2): Willmott v Carless [2024] QCA 115. In that matter, it was held (at [40]) that s 219Q displaced the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009) (Qld) s 20, and that as a result it was necessary for the applicant to show some legal, factual or discretionary error before the reviewing Tribunal could interfere: [43].[2] 

   [2]As a result a decision of the Tribunal that did not adopt that approach has been…