Walters v Drummond & Ors

In the case of Walters v Drummond & Ors, Professor Walters challenges the decision to suspend him under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), made by Mr Drummond, the first respondent, on 24 September 2018. This decision followed the release of a Report by the third and fourth respondents, which found Professor Walters guilty of "maladministration" and "corrupt conduct" in relation to the Indigenous Cardiac Outreach Program (ICOP). The core of Professor Walters' challenge is that the findings of the third and fourth respondents were legally erroneous and that these errors were transferred to Mr Drummond’s suspension decision, which relied on them.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the findings of "maladministration" in the Report were tainted by legal errors, and if so, whether these errors should invalidate the suspension decision. The court also needed to determine whether the findings of "maladministration" were legally unreasonable, whether procedural fairness was breached, and if there was any bias or conflict of interest on the part of Mr Drummond. Additionally, the court examined whether the first respondent could have formed a reasonable belief that Professor Walters was liable to discipline under the Public Service Act, and whether relevant considerations were appropriately taken into account.

The court concluded that the findings of "maladministration" in the Report were indeed affected by legal errors, primarily due to the conflation of the concepts of maladministration and corrupt conduct, and the failure to properly apply the legal standards. These errors, according to the court, were sufficiently significant to taint the suspension decision made by Mr Drummond. Furthermore, the court found that the suspension decision was unreasonable as it failed to properly consider Professor Walters' role within the organisation and did not adequately explore alternative duties he could perform. The court also determined that Mr Drummond’s involvement in the ICOP program and his relationship with Professor Walters created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which further undermined the validity of the suspension decision.

The court set aside the findings in paragraphs 2.43-2.49, 2.52-2.53, 2.63, 7.44-7.48, and 7.54 of the Report and also quashed the decision of the first respondent to suspend Professor Walters. The court ordered that the parties provide submissions regarding costs and any further relief required. This ruling underscores the importance of legal accuracy and procedural fairness in administrative decisions, particularly in disciplinary proceedings within the public service.