King v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin - [2017] QCAT 291

CITATION:	King v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin [2017] QCAT 291
PARTIES:	David King (Applicant)
v
Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR195-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	20 July 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Browne
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The decision of the respondent made on 12 October 2016 that a finding of misconduct for Matter One is substantiated is set aside and a decision is substituted that Matter One is not substantiated.
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where review proceeding – whether disciplinary charge substantiated Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219H Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 21 Aldrich v Ross [2010] 2 Qd R 235 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Comptom v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 384 Crime and Misconduct Commission v Assistant Commissioner J P Swindells & Ors [2009] QSC 409 DA v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCATA 359 Francis v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2015] QCA 218 Murray v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCAT 583
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Mr M Black of legal counsel instructed by Gilshenan and Luton Legal Practice
RESPONDENT:	Mr S McLeod of legal counsel instructed by the Queensland Police Service Legal Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 8 December 2014, in the early hours of the morning, David King, acting sergeant on duty, responded to a call to assist two police officers with an arrest in suburban Townsville.
Soon after Mr King’s arrival at the scene, constables Harley Polman and Richard Chew also responded to the call to assist as the second back up crew.
The police officers who required assistance were constables Andrew Dunkley and Shane Warren. They had searched and questioned a man who had been seen seated inside a vehicle with a flat tray (the utility). There was a tool box bolted to the utility’s flat tray.
During the search, the man handed some cash (the sum of $905) to Mr Warren who counted the money. Mr Warren handed the cash to Mr Dunkley who placed it on the flat tray up against the tool box.
Shortly after Mr King and the second back up crew arrived, the man was arrested and put inside a police van. Mr Dunkley and Mr Warren transported the arrested man to the local hospital and then the police watchhouse.
At the watchhouse, the arrested man asked the assistant watchhouse officer if the police officers had grabbed his money. The police officers could not find the money. An investigation followed. The Queensland Police Service (the QPS) interviewed the police officers and viewed video footage captured by a body camera worn by Mr Dunkley at the scene.
The QPS presented Mr King with a disciplinary hearing notice of misconduct. It was alleged in Matter One that Mr King dishonestly took possession of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCAT 291
Decision Date: 28 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin involves a police officer who was subject to disciplinary action by the Queensland Police Service, leading to a review of the decision by the court. The officer, King, challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to substantiate a charge of misconduct against him. The dispute centered around whether the disciplinary charge against the officer was justified based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision to substantiate the charge of misconduct was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court had to examine the process followed by the Deputy Commissioner in reaching his decision and determine if the decision was in accordance with the applicable laws and procedures. This included assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to substantiate the charge and whether the officer's right to procedural fairness was respected.

The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was not supported by the evidence and that the process followed was flawed. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had not correctly applied the relevant policies and procedures in making his decision, and that the officer's right to procedural fairness had been breached. Consequently, the court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's decision and substituted a decision that the charge of misconduct was not substantiated. This ruling resulted in the officer's disciplinary charge being dismissed, and the court's decision was reflected in the orders made, which included the setting aside of the disciplinary charge and the substitution of a decision that the charge was not substantiated.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the respondent made on 12 October 2016 that a finding of misconduct for Matter One is substantiated is set aside and a decision is substituted that Matter One is not substantiated.

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.