Price v Deputy Commissioner Gee - [2019] QCAT 179

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Price v Deputy Commissioner Gee [2019] QCAT 179

PARTIES:

CONSTABLE JOSHUA PRICE
(applicant)

v

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GEE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR234-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 June 2019

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2019

DATE FINAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:

7 May 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

ORDERS:

1.   The sanction of dismissal imposed by Deputy Commissioner Gee on 18 August 2018 is set aside.

2.   Constable Price has no entitlement to back payments of pay or entitlements for any previous period of suspension or before resuming duties.

3.   Constable Price is dismissed from the Queensland Police Service (QPS), with that sanction wholly suspended for an operational period of three (3) years from the date of this order, on condition that during that period:

(a) Constable Price does not commit any further act of misconduct; and

(b) Constable Price continues to consult Dr Dodds, or a psychiatrist of equivalent standing and expertise, at least every three months and provide evidence to the QPS of such consultations occurring; and

(c)   To the extent required by the QPS, Constable Price:

(i)    engages with a QPS-nominated Human Services Officer on a monthly basis (up to a total of 36 appointments); and

(ii)   engages with a mentoring officer (senior in rank) appointed by the QPS to provide mentoring, support, assistance and/or guidance; and

(iii)    undertakes all training and education reasonably required by the QPS; and

(iv)    submits to an alcohol breath test before commencing, during and/or upon completion of each shift at the direction of the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where officer consumed alcohol while on duty – where officer drove patrol car while inebriated – where vehicle written off in ensuing accident – where officer suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions – where mental issues the significant causal factor in officer’s conduct – suspended dismissal order, subject to conditions

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219A, s 219L
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld),
s 3

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235
Austin v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin [2018] QCAT 120
Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark [2012] QCA 228
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 595
LCNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 463

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Gnech, Solicitor, Queensland Police Union Legal Group

Respondent:

S McLeod QC, instructed by QPS Legal Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

Constable Price was an exemplary and awarded police officer, serving in difficult circumstances as officer-in-charge of a remote, single-officer police station. He had built strong links with his community by whom he was recognised and appreciated for his dedicated and effective service.[1]
[1] These findings are based primarily on numerous references provided by Constable Price which were not challenged.
On 14 August 2017, for the first and only time, and completely out of character, Constable Price consumed alcohol while…

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 Price v Deputy Commissioner Gee 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: [2019] QCAT 179
Decision Date: 28 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Price v Deputy Commissioner Gee is a case involving a dispute between Constable Price and Deputy Commissioner Gee regarding the dismissal of Constable Price from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) due to misconduct. The misconduct involved Constable Price consuming alcohol while on duty, driving a patrol car while inebriated, and causing an accident that resulted in the vehicle being written off. The dispute also considered Constable Price's mental health conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder, which were deemed significant factors in his conduct. The court was required to decide whether the dismissal was justified and what appropriate sanction, if any, should be imposed.

The court examined the role of medical evidence in the context of the misconduct and the principle of deterrence in disciplinary actions. Dr James M Dodds, a psychiatrist with expertise in PTSD and substance abuse, assessed Constable Price and concluded that he suffered from PTSD, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, and alcohol use disorder. Dr Dodds noted that Constable Price was mentally unwell during the incident but was unaware of the extent of his alcohol misuse as a coping mechanism for his anxiety and depression. The court also considered the observations from the Court of Appeal in Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark, which emphasised the importance of resisting temptation and maintaining propriety and integrity under stress. The court had to weigh these factors in determining the appropriate sanction.

The court decided that the dismissal imposed by Deputy Commissioner Gee was set aside, and Constable Price would be dismissed from the QPS with the sanction suspended for three years. During this period, Constable Price was required to refrain from further misconduct, consult with a psychiatrist regularly, engage with a QPS-nominated Human Services Officer and a mentoring officer, complete all required training and education, and submit to random alcohol testing. The court concluded that these conditions provided sufficient assurance that Constable Price would not re-offend while allowing him to continue his career in policing.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the dismissal, denying Constable Price back payments of pay or entitlements, and imposing the suspended dismissal with specific conditions for the three-year operational period. These orders aimed to balance the need for accountability and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and continued service in the QPS.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sanction of dismissal imposed by Deputy Commissioner Gee on 18 August 2018 is set aside.

2. Constable Price has no entitlement to back payments of pay or entitlements for any previous period of suspension or before resuming duties.

3. Constable Price is dismissed from the Queensland Police Service (QPS), with that sanction wholly suspended for an operational period of three (3) years from the date of this order, on condition that during that period:

(a) Constable Price does not commit any further act of misconduct; and

(b) Constable Price continues to consult Dr Dodds, or a psychiatrist of equivalent standing and expertise, at least every three months and provide evidence to the QPS of such consultations occurring; and

(i) engages with a QPS-nominated Human Services Officer on a monthly basis (up to a total of 36 appointments); and

(ii) engages with a mentoring officer (senior in rank) appointed by the QPS to provide mentoring, support, assistance and/or guidance; and

(iii) undertakes all training and education reasonably required by the QPS; and

(iv) submits to an alcohol breath test before commencing, during and/or upon completion of each shift at the direction of the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

However, before turning to those matters, it is necessary to consider aspects of the medical evidence and role of the principle of deterrence in this matter.The medical evidence Dr James M Dodds has practised as a psychiatrist since 1987. He specialises in the assessment and treatment of PTSD and is experienced in substance abuse issues. Dr Dodds interviewed Constable Price on 13 September 2017 and concluded that he had suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’); adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression; and alcohol use disorder, the latter being secondary to the PTSD and adjustment disorder. Dr Dodds noted that Constable Price was ‘mentally very unwell at the time of the offending conduct but was not really aware of the extent and of the fact that he was using alcohol in a destructive way in an attempt to control his high levels of anxiety and depression’. In this 2017 report, Dr Dodds concluded that Constable Price was ‘very unlikely to re-offend in the future’. In a subsequent report following another interview on 22 March 2019, Dr Dodds confirmed that Constable Price’s then ‘current mental and general health situation is one of physical and mental well-being’ and that his previous disorders had completely resolved. This followed additional assistance from a psychologist and his general practitioner. Additionally, in the 2019 report Dr Dodds noted that:Being away from the stress of his work-place has allowed him to reflect more openly on the unhealthy psychological drivers that contributed to the unhealthy work/life balance . . . This reference to the impact of being away from the stress of the workplace raised with me a concern as to how, if Constable Price were allowed to return to policing duties, there could be a sufficient level of assurance that his alcohol misuse would not re-occur. However, there are two aspects that are relevant in this regard. First, Dr Dodds’ evidence is that this is very unlikely to occur. Secondly, the conditions attached to the substituted decision include provision for random alcohol testing by the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate. Mr McLeod, who appeared for the Deputy Commissioner, noted observations by the Court of Appeal in Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark[10] about the significance of how officers deal with stressors. In that case, Muir JA observed:The fact that the conduct occurred when the respondent was suffering from stress may engender some understanding of his conduct and sympathy for him, but it does not bear strongly on the conclusions capable of being drawn about his character and integrity. The great majority of people behave with propriety and integrity in the absence of stress, adversity or temptation. However, it is often when a person is tested by such conditions and circumstances that his or her character is fully revealed. Police officers are commonly placed in situations of considerable stress and may also be subjected to strong temptation from time to time. The expectation of the QPS and the public is that officers will resist any such temptation and will continue to behave with due propriety regardless of stress.[11][10] [2012] QCA 228.[11] Ibid [35].

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Price v Deputy Commissioner Gee [2019] QCAT 179
PARTIES:	CONSTABLE JOSHUA PRICE (applicant)
v
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GEE (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR234-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	28 June 2019
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2019
DATE FINAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:	7 May 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Olding
ORDERS:	1. The sanction of dismissal imposed by Deputy Commissioner Gee on 18 August 2018 is set aside. 2. Constable Price has no entitlement to back payments of pay or entitlements for any previous period of suspension or before resuming duties. 3. Constable Price is dismissed from the Queensland Police Service (QPS), with that sanction wholly suspended for an operational period of three (3) years from the date of this order, on condition that during that period: (a) Constable Price does not commit any further act of misconduct; and (b) Constable Price continues to consult Dr Dodds, or a psychiatrist of equivalent standing and expertise, at least every three months and provide evidence to the QPS of such consultations occurring; and (c) To the extent required by the QPS, Constable Price: (i) engages with a QPS-nominated Human Services Officer on a monthly basis (up to a total of 36 appointments); and (ii) engages with a mentoring officer (senior in rank) appointed by the QPS to provide mentoring, support, assistance and/or guidance; and (iii) undertakes all training and education reasonably required by the QPS; and (iv) submits to an alcohol breath test before commencing, during and/or upon completion of each shift at the direction of the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate.
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where officer consumed alcohol while on duty – where officer drove patrol car while inebriated – where vehicle written off in ensuing accident – where officer suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions – where mental issues the significant causal factor in officer’s conduct – suspended dismissal order, subject to conditions Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219A, s 219L Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 3 Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 Austin v Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin [2018] QCAT 120 Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark [2012] QCA 228 Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 595 LCNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 463
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	C Gnech, Solicitor, Queensland Police Union Legal Group
Respondent:	S McLeod QC, instructed by QPS Legal Unit