Jarvis v Atkinson

Jarvis, a police officer, was injured in the line of duty, which resulted in him being unable to perform all operational duties. Jarvis expressed his unwillingness to transfer to a non-operational position and initiated the process of retiring on medical grounds. He believed he would be assessed as permanently and totally disabled. However, he was assessed as permanently and partially disabled, and it was decided that he should retire on medical grounds. This decision was later withdrawn, and Jarvis agreed to be employed by the Queensland Police Service as a staff member but cease being a police officer. Jarvis sought to review the decision that he be retired as a police officer and sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the respondent’s decision was an improper exercise of power and whether Jarvis was denied procedural fairness by the respondent. The court found that the respondent’s decision was based on the factual assumption that Jarvis was unwilling to transfer to another location, and Jarvis was not given the opportunity to be heard on his preparedness to transfer. The court held that the decision was an improper exercise of power as it was based on an incorrect assumption of fact and that Jarvis was denied procedural fairness by the respondent.

In light of the above, the court set aside the decision of the respondent and referred the matter to the Commissioner of the Police Service for consideration under s 9.5 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld). The court ordered that the decision of the respondent, as set out in the memorandum signed by him dated 23 October 2012, be set aside and the matter to which the decision relates be referred to the Commissioner of the Police Service for consideration under s 9.5 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld).