Watson v Acting Deputy Commissioner McCallum

In the case of Watson v Acting Deputy Commissioner McCallum, the applicant, a member of the dog squad, faced disciplinary charges following an incident where a member of the public was bitten by a police dog. The dispute centred on the applicant’s failure to render aid to the bitten individual, failure to report the incident as required by section 9 of the QPS Dog Handler’s Handbook, and a failure to treat members of the public with respect. Additionally, the applicant was charged with driving through a red light without stopping during a chase and providing an untrue statement in the incident report.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant’s belief that the complainant had not been bitten was an honest and reasonable mistake, and if certain knowledge of the bite was necessary before the duty to report was triggered. The court also had to consider whether the applicant’s actions constituted misconduct and if the decision-maker had the power to recommend the applicant not return to duties in the dog squad outside of the formal disciplinary order. The court examined the primary facts and the inferences that could be drawn to assess the applicant's state of knowledge and the reasonableness of their beliefs and actions.

The court concluded that the applicant's actions constituted misconduct and breaches of discipline. The applicant’s honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the complainant had not been bitten was not a defence to the charges. The court found that sufficient information was available to justify the belief that a member of the public had been bitten, triggering the duty to report. Additionally, the court held that the decision-maker’s recommendation regarding the applicant’s future duties could be administratively made but ideally should be part of the formal disciplinary order. The court confirmed the respondent’s decisions on all charges, including the sanction of dismissal suspended for 24 months, subject to specific conditions.

The final orders confirmed the respondent's decisions and sanctions, including the applicant's dismissal from the service, suspended for 24 months with specific conditions, and a reprimand for one of the charges. The applicant was also required to complete certain training programs and perform community service.