Rucker v Stewart

Case [2014] QCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rucker v Stewart & Ors [2014] QCA 32

PARTIES:

LAURENCE RAY RUCKER
(appellant)
v
IAN STEWART
(first respondent)
COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE FORCE
(second respondent)
PAT MULLINS
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7667 of 2013
SC No 8163 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2014

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – EXCLUSION OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY STATUTE – the appellant is a serving senior sergeant of police in Queensland Police Service – the appellant was stood down from duty by the deputy commissioner pursuant to s 6.1 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) without being afforded an opportunity to present his case – the stand down decision was based on a number of disciplinary allegations – on application by the appellant, the Commissioner for Police Service Reviews reviewed the decision and recommended the decision be affirmed – the police commissioner considered the review recommendation and confirmed the stand down decision – whether procedural fairness was excluded at the time of the original stand down decision – whether the original stand down decision was part of a multi-stage statutory decision making process

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – EXISTENCE OF OBLIGATION – RIGHTS AND INTERESTS AFFECTED BY DECISION – the appellant is a serving senior sergeant of police in Queensland Police Service – the appellant was stood down from duty by the deputy commissioner pursuant to s 6.1 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) without being afforded an opportunity to present his case – the stand down decision was on full pay – the appellant lost the ability to earn additional income through overtime and special duties – the appellant was relieved of his powers and duties and was to be supervised – whether the loss of additional income and loss of policing powers and duties required the appellant be afforded procedural fairness prior to the initial stand down decision being made

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – HEARING – NATURE OF HEARING – OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT CASE – the appellant is a serving senior sergeant of police in Queensland Police Service – the appellant was stood down from duty by the deputy commissioner pursuant to s 6.1 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) without being afforded an opportunity to present his case – the stand down decision was based on a number of disciplinary allegations – on application by the appellant,…

Continue reading Rucker v Stewart

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rucker v Stewart [2014] QCA 32
Case
[2014] QCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a serving senior sergeant of the Queensland Police Service, was stood down from duty by the deputy commissioner under section 6.1 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) without being afforded an opportunity to present his case. The decision to stand him down was based on several disciplinary allegations. The Commissioner for Police Service Reviews reviewed the decision at the appellant’s request and recommended it be affirmed. The police commissioner considered the review recommendation and confirmed the stand down decision. The appellant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that he was denied procedural fairness.

The court considered whether procedural fairness was excluded at the time of the original stand down decision and whether the decision was part of a multi-stage statutory decision-making process. It was noted that the appellant lost the ability to earn additional income through overtime and special duties and was relieved of his powers and duties. The court found that the appellant was required to be afforded procedural fairness prior to the initial stand down decision being made. The court also found that the review commissioner was required to conduct the review hearing de novo and did not impermissibly confine the review to whether the initial stand down decision complied with legislation and policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis. The court held that the review commissioner’s decision was not flawed and that the appellant’s arguments did not succeed. The court found that the review commissioner considered all relevant material and gave proper weight to the evidence presented. The court also found that the appellant’s loss of income and powers and duties did not require the deputy commissioner to afford him procedural fairness prior to the initial stand down decision being made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.