Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [No 2] - [2025] WASAT 91

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
CITATION:   KINGSTON and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [No 2] [2025] WASAT 91
MEMBER:   MR D AITKEN, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   16 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   8 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 1449 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DANIEL JEFFERY JOHN KINGSTON
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervenor

Catchwords:

Local Government Standards Panel - Conduct of councillor - Improper use of office - Intention to cause detriment - Contravention of clause 18 of the Model Code (a rule of conduct) - Minor breach - Appropriate sanction - Public apology and training

Legislation:

Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA), sch 1
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 2.10(1)(c), s 5.102A, s 5.105, s 5.105(1), s 5.106, s 5.125(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 24, s 25(2), s 27, s 29(1), s 29(3)(c)(ii), s 31(1), s 37(1)
The Criminal Code (WA), s 75

Result:

Decision of the Legal Government Standards Panel set aside and substituted with decision of the Tribunal of a minor breach regarding one comment with sanctions of a public apology and training

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-represented
Respondent	:	Mr C Economidis
Intervenor	:	Mr C Economidis

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Intervenor	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Treby v Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

On or about 9 June 2023 Councillor Daniel Jeffery John Kingston (Cr Kingston), a member of the Council (the Council) of the City of Joondalup (the City), made certain comments on Facebook (the comments) regarding comments made by another member of the Council and their voting record in respect of a motion before the Council relating to a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan (the draft CHRMAP).
A complaint was made to the Local Government Standards Panel (the Panel) regarding the comments (the Complaint).
On 8 August 2023 the Panel found that Cr Kingston had committed a minor breach pursuant to s 5.105 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) and cl 18 of the model code of conduct in Sch 1 of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA) (the Model Code) when he made the comments.
On 20 November 2023 the Panel decided to order Cr Kingston to make a public apology and undertake the training specified in the order (the Decision).
Cr Kingston has applied to the Tribunal pursuant to s 5.125(1) of the LG Act for review of the Decision. The Tribunal has made an order pursuant to s 25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) that the…

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 Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [No 2] 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: [2025] WASAT 91
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [No 2], the applicant, Councillor Kingston, sought judicial review of a decision by the Local Government Standards Panel that he had committed a minor breach of the Model Code by improperly using his office. The applicant sought to overturn the Panel’s decision that he had intended to cause detriment to a complainant and that this was a minor breach warranting a public apology and training. The intervener, the Attorney General of Western Australia, supported the Panel’s decision. The State Administrative Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Panel's decision was correct and whether the appropriate sanction was imposed.

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Councillor Kingston's comments constituted a minor breach of the Model Code and if the Panel had correctly identified the breach and sanctioned it. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine whether Councillor Kingston had intended to cause detriment to the complainant and whether this constituted a minor breach. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether the sanction of a public apology and training was appropriate. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and make a decision based on the relevant legal principles and statutes, including the Local Government Act 1993 (WA) and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).

After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal concluded that Councillor Kingston had indeed committed a minor breach of the Model Code. The Tribunal found that Councillor Kingston had intended to cause detriment to the complainant, which constituted a minor breach. The Tribunal considered that the sanction of a public apology and training was appropriate given the nature of the breach. The Tribunal's decision was informed by the principle that the Panel should not play an active role in review proceedings, as recognised in relevant case law. The Tribunal also noted that the Panel would confine its participation to providing the required documents and that the substantive argument would be presented by the intervener.

Following the Tribunal's decision, it ordered Councillor Kingston to make a public apology and undertake the specified training. The Tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to determine the matter, resolving the initial jurisdictional issue that had been raised. The Tribunal’s final order upheld the Panel’s decision, albeit with the Tribunal's own determination on the appropriate sanction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

On 20 November 2023 the Panel decided to order Cr Kingston to make a public apology and undertake the training specified in the order (the Decision). Cr Kingston has applied to the Tribunal pursuant to s 5.125(1) of the LG Act for review of the Decision. The Tribunal has made an order pursuant to s 25(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) that the Decision is stayed until further order. The Attorney General of Western Australia (the Intervenor) has intervened in the proceeding pursuant to s 37(1) of the SAT Act. The State Solicitor's Office represents both the Panel and the Intervenor and has informed the Tribunal that the Panel will confine its participation in the proceeding to providing the documents it is required to provide under s 24 of the SAT Act and that substantive argument in the matter will be presented by the Intervenor.[1][1] The State Solicitor's Office says that this approach is in accordance with the principle recognised in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13. Also, see Treby v Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81 (Treby) at [16] where the Tribunal stated that it is appropriate for the Panel not to play an active role in review proceedings, having regard to the possibility that the Tribunal may invite the Panel to reconsider the decision (s 31(1) of the SAT Act) or make an order on the review setting aside the decision and sending the matter back to the Panel for reconsideration (s 29(3)(c)(ii) of the SAT Act). When the Intervenor and Cr Kingston filed their statements of issues, facts and contentions, an issue was raised by Cr Kingston, from which arose the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter. For the reasons I gave in Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43, I determined that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter, and the matter was then listed for a final hearing on 16 July 2025. The Intervenor had filed a statement of issues, facts and contentions and Cr Kingston had filed a responsive statement of issues, facts and contentions. The Intervenor had then filed a statement in reply to Cr Kingston's statement and Cr Kingston had then filed a response to that statement. The result of those statements was that in this review proceeding the question of whether Cr Kingston committed a minor breach is confined to just one of the comments he made. The Panel had filed the bundle of documents required to be filed by it under s 24 of the SAT Act (s 24 bundle) and Cr Kingston had filed a book of the documents he wished to rely upon which were not in the s 24 bundle. During the final hearing I took into evidence the s 24 bundle and Cr Kingston's book of documents and counsel for the Intervenor, Mr Economidis and Cr Kingston made oral submissions. For the reasons which follow I have decided that Cr Kingston committed a minor breach under s 5.105 of the LG Act and I will order him to make a public apology and to undertake training.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.