Officer Jones v Superintendent McNab

The appeals in Officer Jones v Superintendent McNab concern the review of a decision to redeploy Officer Jones from her position within the Queensland Police Service (QPS) to another workplace. The decision was made under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) and was based on allegations of workplace harassment and bullying. Officer Jones sought a review of the redeployment decision under the Corrective Services Commissioner Act 2006 (Qld) (CC Act). The appeals focus on whether the decision to redeploy was a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of section 219BA(1) of the CC Act and, if so, whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had jurisdiction to review it.

The primary legal issue in these appeals was whether the decision to redeploy Officer Jones constituted a "reviewable decision" under section 219BA(1) of the CC Act. The court had to determine the proper construction of section 219BA(1)(a) of the CC Act, which defines "reviewable decision" to include decisions related to allegations of corruption against a prescribed person. Officer Jones argued that her redeployment decision fell within the definition of a reviewable decision and, therefore, QCAT had jurisdiction to review it. The court also had to consider whether the redeployment decision was a disciplinary decision, which would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of QCAT under section 219D(1) of the CC Act.

The court found that the decision to redeploy Officer Jones was not a "reviewable decision" within the meaning of section 219BA(1) of the CC Act. The court concluded that the redeployment decision did not relate to an allegation of corruption against a prescribed person, as required by the statutory definition. Instead, the redeployment was a workplace safety measure under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). Therefore, the court held that QCAT did not have jurisdiction to review the decision. The court further noted that the redeployment decision was not a disciplinary decision and, thus, did not fall under QCAT's exclusive jurisdiction as provided in section 219D(1) of the CC Act.

As a result of the court's reasoning, both appeals were dismissed. The court found no error in QCAT's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the redeployment decision. Consequently, the orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal or appeal in APL184-19 and APL201-19 were dismissed.