Rucker v Stewart

Case [2013] QSC 182

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rucker v Stewart [2013] QSC 182

PARTIES:

LAWRENCE RAY RUCKER
(Applicant)

v

IAN STEWART
(First Respondent)

AND

COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(Second Respondent)

AND

PAT MULLINS
(Third Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 8163 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2013

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   the application is dismissed.

2.   the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – HEARING – NATURE OF HEARING – OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT CASE – where the applicant was stood down from his employment as a police officer of the Queensland Police Service – where the commissioner for police service reviews did not afford the applicant the opportunity to present his case – whether the applicant should have had the opportunity to present his case for the review decision 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicant was stood down from his employment as a police officer of the Queensland Police Service – where the applicant argued that there was insufficient material to enable the deputy commissioner to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds that he is liable to disciplinary action as a threshold requirement to make the stand down decision – whether there was reasonable grounds

Police Service Administration Act 1990, s 6.1, s 7.4
Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990, reg 5, reg 8, reg 9, reg 10

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Box v The Director-General Department of Transport [1994] 2 Qd R 463. cited

Buck v Bavone [1976] HCA 24; (1976) 135 CLR 110, cited Foster v The Secretary to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development [2008] VSC 504, cited  Gedeon v NSW Crimes Commission [2008] HCA 43; (2008) 236 CLR 120, cited
Gregory v Philip Morris Pty Ltd (1987) 77 ALR 79, cited
Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville [1988] HCA 5; (1988) 164 CLR 234, cited
Lewis v Heffer [1978] 1 WLR 1061, cited
Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell [2008] HCA 38; (2008) 249 ALR 44, cited
Minster for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1896) 162 CLR 24, cited
Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang[1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited
Pervan v Frawley [2011] TASSC 27, cited
Phan v Kelly [2007] FCA 269; (2007) 158 FCR 75, cited Quinn v Overland [2010] FCA 799, cited
State of South Australia v O’Shea[1987] HCA 39; (1987) 163 CLR 378, cited
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL…

Continue reading Rucker v Stewart

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rucker v Stewart [2013] QSC 182
Case
[2013] QSC 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rucker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner for Police Service Reviews to uphold the decision to stand him down from his employment as a police officer. The Queensland Police Service stood Rucker down based on reasonable grounds that he was liable to disciplinary action. Rucker argued that the Commissioner did not afford him procedural fairness by not allowing him to present his case during the review. The central issue was whether the Commissioner was required to provide Rucker with an opportunity to present his case before making the decision.

The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the requirement for an opportunity to be heard. It examined the nature of the hearing and whether the Commissioner's decision-making process complied with these principles. The court held that the Commissioner's decision to uphold the stand down was lawful and that procedural fairness did not require Rucker to be given the opportunity to present his case before the Commissioner. The court found that the Commissioner was not obligated to conduct a hearing where Rucker could present his case, as the decision to stand him down was not determinative of his ultimate liability to disciplinary action.

The court dismissed Rucker's application for judicial review. It found that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and that Rucker had not demonstrated that he was denied procedural fairness. The court ordered that Rucker pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. the application is dismissed.

2. the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding to be assessed.

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.