Rohweder v Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating

Case [2016] QCAT 347
CITATION: Rohweder v Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating [2016] QCAT 347
PARTIES: Paul Rohweder
(Applicant)
v
Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR082-15
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE: 26 April 2016
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Member Howard
DELIVERED ON: 27 September 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1.    The decision of Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:

POLICE- POLICE DISCIPLINE- REVIEW- SANCTION- where officer failed to stop at red traffic signal; furnished misleading report; and engaged in unjustified pursuit- where officer on suspension for other driving related disciplinary matter at time- where officer of 20 years experience- where officer assigned to Road Policing Command-where officer demoted for three months- whether sanction excessive- whether sanction should be suspended

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 17-20
Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219A, s 219G, s 219H, s 219L
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld)
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), reg 3

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235
Tolsher v Commissioner of Police Ian Stewart (No 2) [2013] QCAT 590
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397
Queensland Police Service v Compton (No 2) [2011] QCATA 246
CMC v Barnett & Eaton [2011] QCAT 161
Scott v Assistant Commissioner Peter Martin [2015] QCAT 423
Lee v CCC [2014] QCATA 326
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) (2009) 1 Qd 149
Melling v O’Reilly [1991] MTA
CMC v Nikola & Hoffman [2008] MT
Flegg v CMC & Anor [2014] QCA 42

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT: Mr T Schmidt of Counsel represented Mr Rohweder
RESPONDENT: Mr C Capper, in-house lawyer, Public Safety Business Agency represented Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Paul Rohweder is a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service. He has over 20 years policing experience. A disciplinary charge against him was found to be substantiated (although not all of the particulars were made out) by Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating (the ‘decision-maker’ or ‘the Assistant Commissioner’), who imposed a sanction demoting Mr Rohweder from Senior Constable 2.9 to Constable 1.6 for three months. Provided he completed a positive Performance Development Agreement for the period with no further reported breaches of discipline or misconduct, he was eligible to return to the rank of Senior Constable 2.9 at the end of the three-month period.

  2. Mr Rohweder has filed an application for review of the disciplinary decision in the Tribunal. Although his application was initially broader, it is now confined to review of the sanction imposed. He submits that the sanction imposed is excessive and, at the very least, should have been suspended.

  3. At the time of the Tribunal hearing, the period of demotion had been served. At the time of the disciplinary decision made by the Assistant Commissioner, Mr Rohweder was within the suspension period for reduction in pay level imposed as a disciplinary sanction following another disciplinary hearing. Although I have limited information…

Continue reading Rohweder v Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rohweder v Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating [2016] QCAT 347
Case
[2016] QCAT 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Rohweder v Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondent, a police officer with 20 years of experience, was demoted for three months due to a series of incidents involving failure to stop at a red traffic signal, furnishing a misleading report, and engaging in an unjustified pursuit. The officer was already on suspension for a separate driving-related disciplinary matter at the time of these incidents. The applicant sought to challenge the excessiveness of the sanction imposed on the grounds that it was disproportionate to the misconduct and should be suspended.

The central issue for the tribunal was whether the sanction imposed by the Acting Assistant Commissioner was excessive, considering the officer's extensive experience and the circumstances of the misconduct. The tribunal considered the relevant statutes and case law, including Briginshaw v Briginshaw, which establishes the standard of proof for disciplinary cases, and Tolsher v Commissioner of Police Ian Stewart (No 2), which provides guidance on the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions. The tribunal also examined the nature of the misconduct and the officer's previous record.

After examining the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the tribunal concluded that the Acting Assistant Commissioner's decision was justified. The tribunal found that the sanction was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, taking into account the officer's experience and the specific circumstances. The tribunal also noted that the officer was already on suspension for another disciplinary matter at the time of the incidents. The tribunal therefore dismissed the applicant's appeal and confirmed the decision of the Acting Assistant Commissioner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of Acting Assistant Commissioner Keating is confirmed.

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.