Hti v Carless

Case [2025] QCAT 20

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND


ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

HTI v Carless & Anor [2025] QCAT 20

PARTIES:
HTI

(applicant)

v
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MAURICE CARLESS

(first respondent)
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR394-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.     Particulars (ii), (v), (vi), (xvii), (xviii), (xxix), (xxxii), (xxxiii) and (xxxiv) relied on in Matter 4, although substantiated, did not constitute official misconduct and the respondent’s decision that they constituted official misconduct is therefore set aside.

2.     The decision of the respondent that the four (4) disciplinary matters involving the applicant is confirmed.

3.     The further hearing of the review, to deal with any challenge to the sanction imposed, is adjourned to a date to be fixed upon the applicant filing an application in Form 40 for the proceeding to be listed for a directions hearing within 30 days of the date of this decision.

4.     Publication of information that may identify a person referred to in the filed documents who is not a police officer investigating the applicant’s conduct, and who is not identified in the reasons for decision is prohibited, except to the parties and their representatives and to any tribunal or court dealing with any appeal against the tribunal’s decision in this matter.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – POLICE – MISCONDUCT – review of a finding of misconduct by the applicant officer – nature of the review – where applicant permitted a member of the public to handle police accoutrements whilst at a police station – where applicant requested officers junior to her to access QPrime for her own private purposes – where the applicant engaged in workplace bullying, misuse of authority, intimidation of junior officers and failure of duty – where particulars of conduct formulated into four charges, i.e. Matters – where the first respondent found all particulars in support of each Matter was substantiated and constituted misconduct – where the first respondent found all particulars substantiated and constituted misconduct – where applicant accepted Matters 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as being substantiated – where first respondent relied on the generality of evidence from complainant officers to corroborate the particulars of the complaints against the applicant – whether all particulars of Matter 4 substantiated as misconduct – whether the first respondent’s reliance on corroboration from other officers about the applicant’s general conduct probative – whether all particulars of conduct constitute misconduct.

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219Q(1)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 20

Police Service Administration Act1990 (Qld), s 7.8, Schedule 2 Dictionary

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Crime and Corruption Commission v Chief Superintendent Horton APM & Anor [2021] QCAT 437
Gunter v Assistant Commissioner Wilkins [2021] QCA 274
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
Heuston v Horton [2024] QCAT 432
MAM Mortgages Ltd v Cameron Brothers [2002] QCA 330
Medical Board…

Continue reading Hti v Carless

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hti v Carless [2025] QCAT 20
Case
[2025] QCAT 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hti v Carless involved a police officer, Hti, who was dismissed following a disciplinary proceeding based on findings of misconduct. The respondent, Carless, was responsible for conducting the investigation and making the decision to dismiss Hti. Hti sought judicial review of the decision, challenging the finding that certain particulars of conduct constituted misconduct. The court had to determine whether all the particulars of the conduct amounted to misconduct as defined by the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSA Act).

The legal issues before the court were whether the particulars of misconduct found by the respondent were substantiated and whether they constituted misconduct as per the PSA Act. The court had to consider the nature of the evidence presented, including the similarity of the evidence given by various complainants about Hti’s conduct in the workplace and the timing of when these complaints were made. The court also needed to examine the definition of misconduct and whether the conduct in question fell within this definition.

In reaching its decision, the court found that while the factual bases for the contested particulars had been substantiated, not all of them constituted misconduct under the PSA Act. The court held that certain personal comments made by Hti, although occurring in the workplace, did not amount to misconduct as defined. The court emphasised that the conduct in question should be examined in its entirety to determine whether it constituted misconduct. The court also observed that the lack of timely intervention by senior officers in addressing Hti’s conduct may have contributed to the severity of the outcome.

The court set aside the decision that certain particulars of conduct constituted official misconduct and confirmed the decision regarding the other disciplinary matters. The court further adjourned the hearing to allow Hti to challenge the sanction imposed, subject to her filing an application within 30 days. The court also prohibited the publication of information that might identify individuals not involved in the investigation or decision-making process, except to the parties and relevant tribunals or courts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Particulars (ii), (v), (vi), (xvii), (xviii), (xxix), (xxxii), (xxxiii) and (xxxiv) relied on in Matter 4, although substantiated, did not constitute official misconduct and the respondent’s decision that they constituted official misconduct is therefore set aside.

2. The decision of the respondent that the four (4) disciplinary matters involving the applicant is confirmed.

3. The further hearing of the review, to deal with any challenge to the sanction imposed, is adjourned to a date to be fixed upon the applicant filing an application in Form 40 for the proceeding to be listed for a directions hearing within 30 days of the date of this decision.

4. Publication of information that may identify a person referred to in the filed documents who is not a police officer investigating the applicant’s conduct, and who is not identified in the reasons for decision is prohibited, except to the parties and their representatives and to any tribunal or court dealing with any appeal against the tribunal’s decision in this matter.

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

In my view the reasons by the Assistant Commissioner for concluding these particulars are substantiated are deficient, and do not explore the whole of the relationship between them. Further, given the personal nature of the comments, although occurring in the workplace, they do not amount to misconduct as defined.Conclusion I have come to the decision that although the factual bases for the contested particulars have been substantiated,[30] a number of them do not fall within the definition of “misconduct” under the PSA Act by reference to the authorities cited above. [30]Matter 4 – Particulars (ii), (v), (vi), (xvii), (xviii), (xxix), (xxxii), (xxxiii) and (xxxiv). This of course means that Matter 4 still remains substantiated, but supported by fewer particulars. There are a number of observations, helpful I hope, that can be made about this review application. Firstly, I would observe that apart from those particulars admitted by the applicant in Matter 4, the balance rely on credit findings in circumstances where the evidence of the various complainants has not been tested to any degree. The similarity of the evidence given about the applicant’s conduct generally in the workplace is certainly of assistance in forming a view about whose evidence should be preferred. However, these events occurred over a number of years between 2011 and 2019, with the investigation commencing in 2019. The disciplinary proceeding followed in 2020 culminating with the applicant’s dismissal in December of that year. One is left to wonder why complaints about her behaviour, particularised in Matter 4, were not forthcoming prior to this investigation so the applicant’s conduct could be managed internally without necessitating a dismissal. It must have come to the notice of senior officers during that time (Sgt P was aware of it). Also, over this period, human nature dictates that accuracy about what was said or done, when and where, will be attenuated with some vagueness or uncertainty. Secondly, there can be no doubt that the admissions by the applicant with respect to Matters 1, 2, 3 and 5 are very serious and warrant the imposition of a sanction to reflect the seriousness and to uphold the ethical standards within the service and maintain the public’s, and other officers’, confidence in the service. This is particularly relevant to requesting other officers to access QPrime for the applicant’s own personal benefit. However, with respect to the interaction with other officers in the Station, the applicant’s behaviour was obvious to other senior officers, and not addressed by them or referred up the chain of command, which allowed the status quo to remain unchecked for a number of years thereby effectively giving tacit approval to the way the applicant was managing staff. Had this been addressed earlier within the administration the outcome for the applicant may not have been so harsh. I note that the Assistant Commissioner does not address any of this in his reasons which may have been a mitigating factor.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.