Worth v Assistant Commissioner a C Henderson
[2011] QCAT 301
•25 March 2011
| CITATION: | Worth v Assistant Commissioner A C Henderson [2011] QCAT 301 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Adrian Grant Worth |
| v | |
| Assistant Commissioner A C Henderson |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR178-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 March 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ms Margaret McLennan, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 25 March 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | [1] The application for the review of matter 1 and matter 5 is withdrawn. [2] The wording of matter 2(b) of the disciplinary charge is amended. [3] Matter 2(b) is confirmed. [4] The sanction of Reprimand is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Disciplinary proceedings – amendment of disciplinary charge Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Adrian Grant Worth represented by Mr T Schmidt |
| RESPONDENT: | Assistant Commissioner A C Henderson, represented by Ms S Neale |
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 15 July 2010 Detective Sergeant Adrian Grant Worth (“the applicant”) lodged an application in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the tribunal”) seeking review of a decision made on 5 July 2010 by Assistant Commissioner A C Henderson (“the respondent”). The application was in relation to a disciplinary hearing which concluded on 5 July 2010 and was conducted under the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (“PSAA”). The review sought was in respect of three disciplinary matters.
A compulsory conference which required the parties’ presence in the tribunal pursuant to section 67 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (“the QCAT Act”) was conducted under the provisions of Part 6 Division 2. In the course of the compulsory conference, the applicant applied for the leave of the tribunal to withdraw the application in relation to two of the three matters for which the applicant had sought review. These were matter 1 and matter 5.
Section 46 of the QCAT Act provides for the withdrawal of an application before the matter is heard and decided in the tribunal. The respondent raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal, mindful that subsection 62(1) provides that the tribunal may give a direction in a proceeding in the interest of the speedy and fair conduct of the proceeding, directed that matter 1 and matter 5 be withdrawn from the application for review before the tribunal.
There was one remaining disciplinary matter 2(b) for consideration by the tribunal. In this matter the respondent had found matter 2(b) substantiated and ordered the imposition of Reprimand as the sanction pursuant to section 10(a) of the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990.
The applicant at the time relevant to the remaining disciplinary matter 2(b), was the acting Detective Sergeant, Officer-in-Charge of the Thursday Island Criminal Investigation Branch from December 2006 until he was promoted to that position in June 2007. The applicant was involved in the additional positions as elected Treasurer and committee member of the new Torres Strait branch of the Blue Light Disco.
Broadly, on 23 March 2007 and 27 March 2007, the applicant purchased goods from Big W Earlville. There were purchases made on both occasions for the Blue Light Disco Association. On 27 March 2007 the applicant had also made personal purchases. On 27 March 2007 all the goods which had been purchased on the above days were transported on two pallets in the applicant’s name from Cairns to Horn Island and Thursday Island. On 24 September 2007 the applicant again purchased a quantity of goods from Big W Cairns and, while a large quantity of the goods consisted of purchases made on behalf of the Blue Light Disco Association, some of the goods purchased were for private use. On 30 September 2007 these items were transported on a pallet to Thursday Island.
The quantum cost of the purchases and the quantum cost of the freight transported from Cairns were not in dispute before the tribunal. The sanction of reprimand was not in dispute before the tribunal. In dispute was the wording of matter 2(b).
Pursuant to subsection 73(2) of the QCAT Act, the parties were advised of their right to object to the member who conducted the compulsory conference, constituting the tribunal. The parties waived their rights, pursuant to section 73 of the QCAT Act and requested that the member determine the matter on the papers and with due regard to the agreed joint submission.
[10] The tribunal determines that the charge detailed in Matter 2(b) should now read as follows:
“As a result of the negligence in the financial management of records, the freight of the Blue Light Disco Association goods was not discernible from any private dealings you had for the freight of your goods.”
[11] The tribunal finds Matter 2(b) is substantiated. In addition, the tribunal, having considerable respect for the perceptions and management function of the respondent[1], adopts the original findings and the original sanction of the respondent.
[1] Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 at 257 per Thomas JA.
Order
[12] The tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) of the QCAT Act that matter (2b) be amended in the terms set out in paragraph 10 of this decision.
[13] Pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act the tribunal confirms the original findings and original sanction of the respondent.
0
0
0