Legal Research
Cases
Young v Dawson (No. 2)

Young v Dawson (No. 2)

Case [2022] QCAT 48 13 January 2022

Occupational Regulation Matters

Type to search within this case.

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Young v Dawson (No. 2) [2022] QCAT 48

PARTIES: LUCAS YOUNG

(applicant)

V

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ALASTAIR DAWSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR285-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 January 2022

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. Part of the decision made by Assistant Commissioner Alastair Dawson on 1 December 2017, being the sanction ordered, is varied by adding an order that, with effect from 1 July 2020, the applicant Lucas Young is restored to the rank of Senior Sergeant at paypoint 4.4 and that he is thereafter to progress according to normal industrial arrangements.

2. That otherwise the decision made by Assistant Commissioner Alastair Dawson on 1 December 2017 with respect to sanctions is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION – DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND – where four matters of misconduct were found following a police disciplinary hearing and subsequent tribunal hearings – where the parties have made joint submissions as to sanctions

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s219H, s 219J,
s 452
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 21, s 25
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9(1), s 17(1), s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4, s 7.4, s 11.20

Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482

Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Assistant Commissioner Horton [2020] QCAT 422
Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner MJ Keating & Anor [2021] QCAT 419
Crime and Corruption Commission v Deputy Commissioner Barnett [2017] QCA 320
Garth v Queensland Police Service [2013] QCATA 357
Jackson v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski [2017] QCAT 464
Jose v Assistant Commissioner Condon [2013] QCAT 515
Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod [2020] QCAT 371
McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Wright [2011] QCATA 309
O’Brien v Assistant Commissioner Taylor & Anor [2021] QCATA 12
Officer JXR v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski [2018] QCATA 55
VG v Deputy Commissioner Barnett [2013] QCAT 449
Young v Assistant Commissioner Dawson [2020] QCATA 160

Young v Assistant Commissioner of Police Dawson [2019] QCAT 8

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

The applicant is a police officer who was charged with four disciplinary allegations, identified as Matter 1, Matter 2, Matter 3, and Matter 4 respectively, in respect of which the respondent found him guilty of misconduct by a decision made 1 December 2017 (“the decision”).
On 12 December 2017 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.
On 24 February 2019 the Tribunal[1] set aside the finding number (ix) within Matter 1 and on 27 November 2020 the Appeal Tribunal[2] set aside additional findings numbered (iii) and (vii) within Matter 1.
[1]Young v Assistant Commissioner of Police Dawson [2019] QCAT 8.
[2]Young v Assistant Commissioner Dawson [2020] QCATA 160.
Consequently,…

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.

Continue reading Young v Dawson (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Young v Dawson (No. 2) [2022] QCAT 48
Case: [2022] QCAT 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young v Dawson, the applicant, Lucas Young, appealed against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner Alastair Dawson, who found him guilty of several disciplinary allegations and imposed sanctions. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, argued that the applicant's conduct was serious and undermined his standing as a senior officer, negatively impacting fellow officers and exposing the service to a risk of loss of public confidence. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the sanctions imposed were disproportionate and should be varied. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had jurisdiction to review the decision and impose its sanction, and the parties had jointly proposed a sanction that the Tribunal ought not to depart from lightly. The Tribunal found the proposed sanction appropriate and varied the original sanction decision by restoring the applicant to the rank of Senior Sergeant from 1 July 2020, while confirming the original sanction decision otherwise.

The QCAT reviewed the circumstances afresh and produced the correct and preferable decision on sanctions. The Tribunal considered the factors in favour of the sanction and the applicant, including the protracted period of misconduct, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the applicant's remorse, insight, and professional conduct since the findings. The Tribunal also considered the financial loss caused by the demotion and transfer. The Tribunal found the proposed sanction to be an appropriate order that reflected the seriousness of the misconduct, the applicant's fitness for a higher rank, and the purposes of a disciplinary proceeding. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's human rights and found any limitation on those rights to be consistent with the proper purpose of maintaining public confidence in the police service and achieving police discipline. The Tribunal varied the original sanction decision by restoring the applicant to the rank of Senior Sergeant from 1 July 2020 and confirmed the original sanction decision otherwise.

Orders