Watson-Paul v Acting Assistant Commisioner Kerry Dunn - [2013] QCATA 245

CITATION:

Watson-Paul v Acting Assistant Commisioner Kerry Dunn [2013] QCATA 245

PARTIES:	Larry John Watson-Paul (Appellant)
v
Acting Assistant Commisioner Kerry Dunn (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL081-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President
Margaret McLennan, Member

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – POLICE OFFICER – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT – where the applicant was detained and arrested – where it was alleged the applicant provided false and misleading information in response to questions about the events leading up to the arrest – where internal police disciplinary proceedings commenced – where the respondent determined that it was appropriate to impose penalties on the applicant for that conduct – where the applicant was temporarily demoted, received a reduction in salary and ordered to undertake community service – where the applicant sought to review that decision – where the Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision regarding the conduct which led to the arrest, but determined that the allegation that the applicant provided false and misleading information was unsubstantiated – where the applicant seeks to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), Schedule 3

Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc [1997] 1 SCR 748, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, cited
Lawler v Assistant Commissioner, Queensland Police Service [2013] QCAT 313, cited
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

No appearance by or on behalf of Mr Watson-Paul

RESPONDENT:

Mr S A McLeod of Counsel for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Justice Alan Wilson, President

This appeal arises out of events which occurred in the early hours of 24 November 2007 when Mr Watson-Paul was a serving police officer.[1] It is not in dispute that around 3:00 am on 24 November 2007 Mr Watson-Paul, then off-duty and in company with another off-duty officer, entered the Fortitude Valley Police Beat and, while quite drunk, said and did things which led to him being detained and arrested.
[1]He is no longer a serving member of the Queensland Police Service.
Mr Watson-Paul was on sick leave at the time and a second charge involved an allegation that he should not have been out and about, and drunk, while on that leave. A third charge concerned an interview in March 2009 about those events and an allegation that Mr Watson-Paul wrongly denied, or was untruthful about, the event itself.
Internal police disciplinary proceedings followed. On October 2010 the respondent, an acting Assistant Commissioner of the QPS, determined that the first and third matters were substantiated and imposed penalties.
The penalty relating to the event at the Fortitude Valley Police Beat was a demotion…

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 Watson-Paul v Acting Assistant Commisioner Kerry Dunn 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: [2013] QCATA 245
Decision Date: 28 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Watson-Paul v Acting Assistant Commissioner Kerry Dunn concerns an appeal against a decision made by a Tribunal that affirmed certain disciplinary actions imposed on a police officer by internal police disciplinary proceedings. The applicant, a police officer, was arrested and faced allegations of misconduct, including providing false and misleading information during the investigation into the events leading up to the arrest. As a result, the Acting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties, including temporary demotion, salary reduction, and community service. The Tribunal reviewed the case and upheld the conduct leading to the arrest but found the allegation of providing false and misleading information unsubstantiated.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision, specifically concerning the affirmation of the conduct that led to the arrest and the unsubstantiated finding of providing false and misleading information. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and that the evidence did not support the findings. The court had to consider whether there were grounds to believe that the Tribunal's decision was so palpably wrong that it warranted further judicial review.

In its reasoning, the court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and that the Tribunal was well-equipped to assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. The court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as it was not satisfied that the Tribunal had made an error of law or that the decision was otherwise unjust. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and the disciplinary measures imposed on the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

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.