O'Brien v Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gollschewski, Queensland Police Service

The decision in O'Brien v Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gollschewski, Queensland Police Service involves an appeal by Senior Constable Kelly O'Brien against a disciplinary sanction imposed by the Queensland Police Service. The disciplinary action was taken after O'Brien was found to have driven a vehicle while off duty with a blood-alcohol concentration of.070%, resulting in a charge of drink-driving. The primary issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the resulting sanction were justified, considering the definition of misconduct and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the term "misconduct" in the context of police disciplinary proceedings, the application of the drink-driving matrix within the police disciplinary framework, and whether the sanction imposed was commensurate with the purpose of disciplinary action. Specifically, the court had to determine whether O'Brien's actions warranted a reduction in rank and salary and whether the severity of the sanction was consistent with the need for reasonable comparability and the overarching purpose of disciplinary proceedings.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) found that O'Brien's actions constituted misconduct as defined within the police disciplinary context. However, the Tribunal's decision to reduce O'Brien's salary to Senior Constable pay point 2.8 for nine months was deemed excessive. The appeal court considered the mitigating circumstances of O'Brien's case, including her otherwise unblemished service record and the impact of the sanction on her career. The court concluded that a more proportionate sanction was warranted and set aside the original penalty, ordering a reduction in salary from Senior Constable pay point 2.9 to Senior Constable pay point 2.8 for a period of six months instead.

The final orders of the court confirmed the original finding of misconduct but adjusted the sanction to be more reflective of the mitigating circumstances and the need for a proportionate response in disciplinary proceedings. The new sanction imposed a six-month salary reduction, which was seen as more aligned with the purpose of the disciplinary action.