Hume v Keating

Case [2016] QCATA 67


CITATION: Hume v Keating [2016] QCATA 67
PARTIES: Colin Hume
(Applicant/Appellant)
v
Acting Assistant Commissioner Michael Keating
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL257-15
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: 17 February 2016
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Senior Member Stilgoe OAM
Member Guthrie
DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1.    Appeal dismissed.

  1. The sanction imposed on Senior Constable Colin Hume by Acting Assistant Commission Michael Keating on 22 October 2014 namely:

(a)  A reduction in paypoint from 2.9 to 2.8 for 12 months

(b)  The sanction is suspended conditional upon Senior Constable Colin Hume completing 100 hours community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within 12 months from 22 October 2014,

is varied so as to extend the time for Mr Hume to complete community service to the date that is four months from the date of this decision.

3.    The parties may file and serve any submissions about whether Mr Hume should be given extra time to complete his community service by 31 May 2016

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – POLICE – DRINK-DRIVING CONVICTION – where the applicant was convicted of drink driving while off duty and later found guilty of misconduct by the Queensland Police Service – where Queensland Police Service imposed a sanction of a reduction in paypoint Senior Constable 2.9 to 2.8 for 12 months suspended upon him completing 100 hours community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within 12 months – where that decision was reviewed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the Tribunal confirmed the decision – where the applicant seeks to appeal the decision on grounds that the Tribunal erred in law by finding that the decision was the correct and preferable decision; that the purposes of discipline were achieved by imposing such a sanction in the applicant’s circumstances; that comparative cases involving sanctions with regard to principles of general and personal deterrence were relevant and comparable in this instance – where applicant seeks reduction in community service to 20 hours over a period of 12 months – where applicant had diagnosed chemical depression – whether the Wednesbury principles apply on appeal – whether appropriate weight given to mitigating factors – whether sanction manifestly excessive

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4
Police Service (Discipline) Regulation 1990 (Qld), s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 2009, s 142, s 146

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Crime and Corruption Commission v Queensland Police Service and Anor [2015] QCATA 15
Crime andMisconduct Commission v McLennan & Ors [2008] QSC 23
Flegg v CMC and Anor [2014] QCA 42
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
Jason Wheeler v AC Paul Wilson [2013] QCAT 519
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
O’Brien v Assistant Commissioner Steven Gollschewski, Queensland Police Service [2014] QCATA 148
Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156…

Continue reading Hume v Keating

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hume v Keating [2016] QCATA 67
Case
[2016] QCATA 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Senior Constable Colin Hume against a disciplinary decision by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) was heard by the court. Senior Constable Hume was found guilty of misconduct after being convicted of drink driving while off duty. The QPS imposed a sanction of a reduction in his paypoint from Senior Constable 2.9 to 2.8 for 12 months, suspended upon him completing 100 hours of community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within 12 months. This decision was upheld by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Senior Constable Hume now appeals the QCAT's decision on the grounds that it was incorrect and that the sanction was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his diagnosed chemical depression. He also argues that the QCAT failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors and apply the principles of general and personal deterrence.

The court was required to determine whether the QCAT erred in confirming the QPS's decision and whether the sanction imposed was appropriate. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the QCAT applied the correct legal principles, whether the sanction achieved the purposes of discipline, and whether the sanction was excessive given the mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider whether the principles of general and personal deterrence, as applied in similar cases, were relevant and whether the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the QCAT did not err in law and correctly confirmed the QPS's decision. The court held that the sanction imposed was appropriate and that the purposes of discipline were achieved. The court found that the QCAT had adequately considered the mitigating factors, including Senior Constable Hume's diagnosed chemical depression, and that the principles of general and personal deterrence were relevant. The court found that the sanction was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. However, the court varied the sanction to extend the time for Senior Constable Hume to complete his community service by four months from the date of the decision. The court invited submissions on whether further time should be granted for the completion of community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

1. The sanction imposed on Senior Constable Colin Hume by Acting Assistant Commission Michael Keating on 22 October 2014 namely:

(a) A reduction in paypoint from 2.9 to 2.8 for 12 months

(b) The sanction is suspended conditional upon Senior Constable Colin Hume completing 100 hours community service at a Police Citizens Youth Club within 12 months from 22 October 2014,

is varied so as to extend the time for Mr Hume to complete community service to the date that is four months from the date of this decision.

3. The parties may file and serve any submissions about whether Mr Hume should be given extra time to complete his community service by 31 May 2016

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.