Legal Research
Cases
Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor

Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor

Link copied

Case Copied 19 November 2014 37 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor [2014] QCATA 326

PARTIES: Anthony Lee
(Applicant/Appellant)

v

Crime and Corruption Commission
Deputy Commissioner Ross Barnett
(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL151-14

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: 30 September 2014

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Hon J B Thomas AM QC, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON: 19 November 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:
1. Leave to appeal is granted;

2. The appeal against paragraph 1 of the QCAT order of 6 March 2014 granting leave to the Crime and Corruption Commission to adduce the evidence therein specified is dismissed;

3. The appeal against paragraph 2 of the QCAT order in this matter of 6 March 2014 (ordering return of the matter to Deputy Commissioner Barnett for reconsideration pursuant to s 23 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009) is allowed, and that order is set aside;

4. In its place it is ordered that the decisions of Deputy Commissioner Barnett comprised in Form A (dated 3 June 2013 and 14 June 2013) and Form B (dated 19 June 2013) are set aside under s 24 of the said Act, and the disciplinary proceeding against Anthony Lee is returned for reconsideration and further processing.

CATCHWORDS:

Police discipline – monitoring role of CMC and CCC – reviewable decisions – what constitutes a reviewable decision in the police disciplinary process – whether prosecutorial functions reviewable – police disciplinary system discussed – Administrative Consensual Disciplinary Process (ACDP) discussed – requirements for proper charge to be laid – need for identification of charge – whether "dishonesty" or "bias" raised in charge – circumstances in which lighter charge laid than might be thought reasonable – failure to specify any "prescribed ground" under PSAA Regulations – sanction fully suspended – whether justifiable under s 5 of PSAA regulations – whether plea bargaining authorised by ACDP – adduction of new evidence under s 219H of CMC Act and CCC Act – circumstances justifying setting aside decisions and returning the matter under s 24 of QCAT Act

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219BA
Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s 219BA(1), s 219G, s 219H
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4, s 4.9(1), s 4.9(3), s 7.4
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 5, s 12
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(c), s 20(2), s 23, s 24(1)(c)

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235
Arndt v Crime and Misconduct Commission and Anor [2013] QCATA 340
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Wilson & Chapman [2010] QCAT 564
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
John Holland Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 338
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2008] QCA 301
Harris v Muirhead [1993] 2 Qd R 527
Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
Melling v O’Reilly [1991] MTA (Misconduct Tribunal, Dr Forbes, 2 April 2008)
Morris v…

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 & Anor 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: [2014] QCATA 326
Decision Date: 19 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission & Anor involved a dispute regarding the police disciplinary process in Queensland. The primary issue was whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had the authority to review certain decisions made in the context of the disciplinary process against a police officer, Anthony Lee. This included decisions made by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Barnett. The matter was heard and determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had to consider whether the QCAT's intervention in the disciplinary process was justified under the applicable legislation.

The central legal questions addressed by the Court of Appeal were the scope of reviewable decisions in the police disciplinary process and the extent to which QCAT could intervene in such decisions. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the CCC's decision to adduce new evidence and the Deputy Commissioner's decision to suspend a sanction were reviewable by QCAT. The Court also examined the procedural requirements for laying proper charges in disciplinary proceedings and the conditions under which QCAT could set aside disciplinary decisions and return a matter for reconsideration.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that while some decisions in the disciplinary process were inherently non-reviewable due to their prosecutorial nature, others were indeed subject to judicial review. The Court determined that the CCC's decision to adduce new evidence was not reviewable, but the Deputy Commissioner's decision to suspend a sanction without specifying a prescribed ground under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Qld) was reviewable. The Court held that QCAT had the authority to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's decisions and return the matter for reconsideration, as the decisions did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal against the QCAT order that had returned the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration, and instead ordered that the disciplinary proceeding against Anthony Lee be returned for reconsideration and further processing.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal against the QCAT order allowing the CCC to adduce new evidence, allowed the appeal against the QCAT order returning the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, and set aside that order. The Court ordered that the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner were to be set aside, and the disciplinary proceeding against Anthony Lee was to be returned for reconsideration and further processing in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted;

2. The appeal against paragraph 1 of the QCAT order of 6 March 2014 granting leave to the Crime and Corruption Commission to adduce the evidence therein specified is dismissed;

3. The appeal against paragraph 2 of the QCAT order in this matter of 6 March 2014 (ordering return of the matter to Deputy Commissioner Barnett for reconsideration pursuant to s 23 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009) is allowed, and that order is set aside;

4. In its place it is ordered that the decisions of Deputy Commissioner Barnett comprised in Form A (dated 3 June 2013 and 14 June 2013) and Form B (dated 19 June 2013) are set aside under s 24 of the said Act, and the disciplinary proceeding against Anthony Lee is returned for reconsideration and further processing.

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.

PARTIES:	Anthony Lee (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Crime and Corruption Commission Deputy Commissioner Ross Barnett (Respondent)