Jones v Acting Assistant Commissioner Horton

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Jones v Acting Assistant Commissioner Horton [2020] QCAT 304

PARTIES:

LYNETTE JONES

(applicant)

v

ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GLENN HORTON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR214-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Application for a stay is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO STAY A DECISION – where applicant found to have engaged in misconduct in workplace relations with co-workers – where conduct negatively impacted co-workers – where misconduct substantiated – where sanction imposed including local transfer from Forensic Services Group – where applicant currently engaged in accreditation within Forensic Services Group to advance to rank of Sergeant – whether the local transfer will prevent the applicant from completing the accreditation – whether prejudice to the applicant if stay not granted – whether arguable case on the merits – whether balance of convenience favours a stay.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 22

Police Administration Act 1990 ss 7.35, 7.38, 11.20 and 11.22

Police Service Administration (Discipline reform)and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019

Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service (no 3) [2020] QIRC 047

Erathnage v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 418.

Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart v Kennedy [QCATA] 254

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr Black of counsel instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Respondent:

Mr Nicholson of counsel instructed by Mr Capper of the Queensland Police Legal Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant is a Senior Constable with in excess of 30 years service as a sworn police officer. She was the subject of disciplinary charges brought against her for engaging in negative workplace behaviour between 1 December 2013 and 30 April 2018. The particulars of the behaviour are wide ranging and form part of the complaint in Matter 1 and set out in some detail in the respondent’s decision on sanction made on 24 June 2020.

2. Earlier the respondent found that the allegations of negative workplace behaviour were substantiated in his decision on 18 May 2020. Subsequently, and after receiving submissions from the applicant on the level of sanction that should be imposed, he made the following decision:

   1.     You are demoted from Senior Constable Paypoint 10 to Constable Paypoint 6 for a period of three (3) months.

   Your demotion is suspended on the following conditions:

   (a)You have no further allegations of misconduct substantiated against you for a six (6) month period; and

   (b)You satisfactorily complete a Performance Development Assessment within six (6) months of commencement in a new position;

   and

   2.     You are locally transferred from Forensic Services Group to another position at the determination of the Assistant Commissioner, Operations Support Command.

3. On 21 June 2020, the applicant filed an application to review the respondent’s decision on the following grounds:

   1.     The respondent had no power or authority to make the decision under review.

   2.     Alternatively, the respondent should have found on the merits that…