Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2016] QCA 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2016] QCA 145

PARTIES:

ANTHONY LEE
(appellant)
v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
(first respondent)
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9866 of 2015
SC No 2174 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 226

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2016

JUDGES:

Philip McMurdo JA and Douglas and Bond JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay the costs of each respondent of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT – where, in 2008, a complaint of misconduct against a police officer was referred to the appellant police officer for investigation – where the appellant’s final report recommended that the officer be exonerated – where the officer in question in fact committed the conduct complained of and was charged and sentenced on numerous offences – where, in the course of its investigation, the police Ethical Standards Command (“ESC”) discovered that the appellant had failed to interview subject officers and view CCTV footage of the officer’s conduct before submitting his final report – where the ESC supplied this information to the Crime and Corruption Commission (“CCC”) – where the CCC subsequently recommended to the ESC that the appellant should face a disciplinary hearing – where the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not act on the CCC’s recommendation and negotiated an outcome with the appellant whereby he would undertake an Administrative Consensual Disciplinary Process and be demoted in rank, wholly suspended for 12 months – where the CCC applied for review of that decision by QCAT – where the QCAT Appeal Tribunal returned the matter to the decision-maker to reconsider, suggesting further evidence be considered – where, on 16 December 2014, the Assistant Commissioner of Police decided that he would finalise the matter by way of “managerial action” – where, on 18 December 2014, the CCC advised the Assistant Commissioner it did not agree with the proposed method of “managerial action” and was assuming responsibility for the investigation pursuant to s 48(1)(d) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where the appellant sought a declaration in the Trial Division that because the matter had been dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner the CCC had no power to assume responsibility of the investigation – where the learned trial judge dismissed the application and held that the decision of 16 December 2014 did not finalise all allegations against the appellant and, in any event, such a limitation on the CCC’s powers would undermine its monitoring role – where the appellant contends the learned trial judge erred – whether, on the correct construction of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), the CCC’s investigative powers were exhausted upon the Assistant Commissioner’s decision

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 33, s…

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 Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission 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: [2016] QCA 145
Decision Date: 7 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission involved a police officer, the appellant, who was investigated for his handling of a misconduct complaint against another officer. The appellant recommended the officer be exonerated, despite the officer subsequently being charged with offences. The Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) investigated the appellant's conduct and recommended disciplinary action. The Deputy Commissioner negotiated a demotion and suspension for the appellant. The CCC applied for a review of this decision by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. The Assistant Commissioner decided to conclude the matter through "managerial action" but the CCC disagreed and took over the investigation. The appellant sought a declaration that the CCC lacked the power to do so, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner's decision finalised the matter.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the CCC's investigative powers were exhausted by the Assistant Commissioner's decision on 16 December 2014, or if the CCC could still assume responsibility for the investigation under section 48(1)(d) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The court had to determine the extent of the CCC's powers in relation to the disciplinary process against police officers and whether the Assistant Commissioner's decision effectively concluded the matter. The court also considered whether the CCC's ability to take over investigations would be undermined if limited by prior decisions of police authorities.

The learned trial judge dismissed the appellant's application, holding that the Assistant Commissioner's decision did not finalise all allegations against him and that limiting the CCC's powers would undermine its role in monitoring police conduct. The judge concluded that the CCC retained the authority to assume responsibility for investigations under the Act. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in this interpretation of the Act's provisions. However, the court found that the Act did not impose the limitation the appellant suggested and that the CCC's role in overseeing police conduct necessitated broad investigative powers.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of each respondent. The court upheld the CCC's ability to investigate and take over disciplinary matters, affirming its critical role in maintaining accountability within the police force.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay the costs of each respondent of the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2016] QCA 145
PARTIES:	ANTHONY LEE (appellant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (first respondent) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9866 of 2015 SC No 2174 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 226
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2016
JUDGES:	Philip McMurdo JA and Douglas and Bond JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant to pay the costs of each respondent of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE – EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT – where, in 2008, a complaint of misconduct against a police officer was referred to the appellant police officer for investigation – where the appellant’s final report recommended that the officer be exonerated – where the officer in question in fact committed the conduct complained of and was charged and sentenced on numerous offences – where, in the course of its investigation, the police Ethical Standards Command (“ESC”) discovered that the appellant had failed to interview subject officers and view CCTV footage of the officer’s conduct before submitting his final report – where the ESC supplied this information to the Crime and Corruption Commission (“CCC”) – where the CCC subsequently recommended to the ESC that the appellant should face a disciplinary hearing – where the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not act on the CCC’s recommendation and negotiated an outcome with the appellant whereby he would undertake an Administrative Consensual Disciplinary Process and be demoted in rank, wholly suspended for 12 months – where the CCC applied for review of that decision by QCAT – where the QCAT Appeal Tribunal returned the matter to the decision-maker to reconsider, suggesting further evidence be considered – where, on 16 December 2014, the Assistant Commissioner of Police decided that he would finalise the matter by way of “managerial action” – where, on 18 December 2014, the CCC advised the Assistant Commissioner it did not agree with the proposed method of “managerial action” and was assuming responsibility for the investigation pursuant to s 48(1)(d) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where the appellant sought a declaration in the Trial Division that because the matter had been dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner the CCC had no power to assume responsibility of the investigation – where the learned trial judge dismissed the application and held that the decision of 16 December 2014 did not finalise all allegations against the appellant and, in any event, such a limitation on the CCC’s powers would undermine its monitoring role – where the appellant contends the learned trial judge erred – whether, on the correct construction of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), the CCC’s investigative powers were exhausted upon the Assistant Commissioner’s decision Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 33, s…