| CITATION: | Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCATA 258 |
| PARTIES: | Brian George Kennedy (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL023-12 / APL077-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member Ken Barlow SC, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 December 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The appellant’s application for leave to appeal or appeal in APL023-12 is dismissed.1. The respondent’s application for leave to appeal or appeal in APL077-12 is dismissed.2. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Misconduct – where charge of dishonestly gaining a benefit substantiated – where dishonesty an element of the charge – whether the Tribunal made findings that the conduct of the appellant was dishonest – whether reasons demonstrate the question of dishonesty was considered by the Tribunal Sanction – whether sanction imposed inadequate for the appellant’s conduct – where imposition of sanction an exercise of discretion – whether discretion miscarried – whether a basis established for interference with the sanction imposed Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142 R v Easton (1994) 1 Qd R 531 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Zillman of counsel instructed by Gilshenan and Luton |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr McLeod of counsel instructed by the Queensland Police Service Legal Officer |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Kennedy is a Senior Sergeant serving in the Queensland Police Service. In 2009 he was the subject of an investigation for improper conduct which resulted in disciplinary proceedings being brought against him. He was charged with three counts of improper conduct. The Deputy Commissioner found that the charges were substantiated and imposed a sanction that he be dismissed from the Queensland Police Service.
Sgt Kennedy applied to the Tribunal for review of the Deputy Commissioner’s decision and on 22 December 2011 the Tribunal set aside two of the charges as being unsubstantiated, and confirmed one charge.
The charge confirmed was that:
Between the 15th day of April 2008 and the 24th day of January 2009 at Mount Isa or elsewhere your conduct was improper in that you:-
(a) Dishonestly gained the benefit of a “Trailblaza” portable camping fridge the property of the Mt Isa Police Citizens Youth Club.
Further and better particulars
Investigations have identified that a “Trailblaza” portable camping fridge was donated by Margaret Emily Albeiz for the assistance of the Mt Isa Police Citizens Youth Club. The investigations have identified you:-
· Utilised the said Trailblaza portable camping fridge at your (former) residence at Mt Isa;
·
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QCATA 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the tribunal had correctly identified the appellant's conduct as dishonest and if it had properly exercised its discretion in imposing the sanction. The central issue was whether the tribunal had made findings that the conduct of the appellant was dishonest and whether the reasons provided by the tribunal demonstrated that the question of dishonesty was adequately considered. Additionally, the court had to examine if the sanction imposed was inadequate for the appellant's conduct and whether there was a basis for the court to interfere with the tribunal's discretionary decision.
The court held that the tribunal had indeed considered the question of dishonesty and made findings accordingly. The reasoning provided by the tribunal sufficiently demonstrated that the issue of dishonesty was appropriately addressed. Regarding the sanction, the court recognised that the imposition of the sanction was a matter of discretion for the tribunal and found that the tribunal had not miscarried in its discretion. Consequently, the court decided not to interfere with the sanction imposed by the tribunal.
The court dismissed both the appellant's application for leave to appeal and the respondent's application for leave to appeal. The orders confirmed the tribunal's findings and the appropriateness of the sanction imposed. The appellant's challenge to the tribunal's decision was unsuccessful, and the disciplinary action was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellant’s application for leave to appeal or appeal in APL023-12 is dismissed.1.
The respondent’s application for leave to appeal or appeal in APL077-12 is dismissed.2.
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.