QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL"

Transcription

1 QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NO/S: MATTER TYPE: Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Codd & Anor [2019] QCAT 7 CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (applicant) v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BRIAN CODD (first respondent) DEAN JAMES GODFREY (second respondent) OCR Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 22 January 2019 HEARING DATE: 9 May 2018 HEARD AT: DECISION OF: ORDERS: Brisbane Member Fitzpatrick 1. The decision of Assistant Commissioner Brian Codd under review is confirmed. 2. The Applicant is to notify the Respondents and the Tribunal by 29 January 2019 if it requires a determination of an appropriate sanction and if so required, the First and Second Respondents are to file and serve submissions by 5 February The Second Respondent to file and serve any submissions in relation to costs by 29 January The Applicant and First Respondent to file and serve any submissions in relation to costs by 5 February CATCHWORDS: POLICE INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT QUEENSLAND where police officer provided a watch-house photograph to a member of the public whether provision of the photograph was for a justifiable operational reason consistent with the functions of the police service whether provision of the photograph was improper safety considerations Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219G, s 219H

2 2 Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.3, s 4.9, s 10.1(c), s 10.2 Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 9(1)(f) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: First Respondent: Second Respondent: Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336 Heffernan v Harris ex parte Heffernan [1992] QCA 412 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission [2014] QCATA 326 Officer JGB v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski and Anor [2016] QCAT 348 Res 1 v Medical Board of Queensland [2008] QCA 152 D Caughlin of the Crime and Corruption Commission B Wadley of the Queensland Police Service C Hartigan, instructed by Gilshenan and Luton Solicitors REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an application for review of a decision by the First Respondent that a charge of misconduct against the Second Respondent was not substantiated. That decision was made on 10 May [2] By Order made 12 June 2017, pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) publication of the names and/or identifying particulars of all third parties is prohibited. Accordingly, third parties and their addresses have been changed to random letters and use of the words an address. [3] The role of the Tribunal is to arrive at the preferable decision after a fresh hearing on the merits, by reference to the original evidence before the decision maker and any new evidence admitted with leave of the Tribunal. 1 The standard of proof is reasonable satisfaction on the balance of probabilities. 2 [4] I have considered all material filed in the matter which was the original evidence in the disciplinary proceeding before the First Respondent. I have also considered new evidence admitted by leave of the Tribunal on 21 November The new evidence is an Objection to Bail affidavit sworn by the Second Respondent on 28 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 20; Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219G, s 219H. Weight may be given to the First Respondent s views: Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235, [41]-[45]. 2 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336,

3 3 May 2014 and an unsworn Objection to Bail affidavit of the Second Respondent drafted on 17 May 2014, referred to by the Applicant as the 16 May 2014 affidavit. [5] In addition to the written submissions filed in this matter, oral submissions were made before me by representatives of all parties on 9 May Background Facts [6] Following a direction of the Tribunal, a jointly agreed chronology was filed by the parties on 4 September [7] By reference to the chronology, I find that the following facts and events occurred: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) 12 May an Intelligence report relating to AD was entered into QPrime; 13 May AD reported his motorcycle stolen from an address; 16 May AD s motorcycle was located in FP s possession; 17 May FP was arrested and charged; 17 May QPrime Activity between hours and hours when the Second Respondent accessed various records relating to FP and AD, including the above Intelligence report, in accordance with his duties as the corroborating officer for the arrest of FP; 17 May a watch-house photo was taken of FP; 19 May AD attended the Police Station and speaks with the Second Respondent; 19 May QPrime Activity between and hours, when the Second Respondent accessed various records relating to FP and AD and saved FP s watch-house photo to a computer desktop; 19 May the Second Respondent s official police diary entry records him meeting with AD; 28 June another police officer attended an alarm activation and spoke with a security officer observed to be in possession of FP s watch-house photo; 24 July AD s statement was given in relation to his attendance at the Police Station, meeting with the Second Respondent and obtaining a photo of FP; 7 October 2015 a letter was sent from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC); (m) 31 March 2016 Ethical Standards Command interview with AD; (n) (o) 2 August 2016 Ethical Standards investigation report; 6 December discipline hearing notice;

4 4 (p) (q) (r) (s) 24 January submissions of Second Respondent; 10 May notice of formal findings by the First Respondent; 10 May findings and reasons of First Respondent; 29 May CCC filed the current proceedings to review the First Respondent s decision. [8] The Applicant has provided some further matters for consideration. No challenge is made to these matters. Except as noted, I find that the matters are as asserted or occurred as alleged. (a) The overall grading for the report entered on 12 May 2014 was A (source evaluation was determined to be completely reliable ) 2 (intelligence evaluation was determined as a probably true report ). The intelligence report stated, amongst other things, that AD was a named motorcycle gang associate and was in possession of the motor cycle gang s branded clothing and other items. 3 I make no finding in relation to the truth of the allegation about AD. (b) On 17 May 2014, the Second Respondent accessed the intelligence report on AD that stated AD was a CMG associate, who was: In possession of a.2-2 firearm on his boat...the firearm was sighted in further information that AD is a CMG associate and is in possession of CMG branded clothing and other items. 4 I make no finding in relation to the truth of the contents of the report. (c) A bail application in relation to FP was heard on 19 May The Second Respondent filed with the Magistrates Court, the 16 May 2014 affidavit. Relevantly, the Second Respondent deposed that: In relation to his current offending, the Defendant was found in possession of a stolen Harley Davidson on 16 May 2014, stolen from an alleged member of the Criminal Motorcycle Gang. The Court might be reminded of the 1996 murder of a Logan man resulting in the arrest of 18 members of the Finks Outlaw Motorcycle Gang over the theft of a motorcycle belonging to a Finks OMCG member... 5 The Defendant s relatives...are aware the motorcycle was stolen from a Criminal Motorcycle Gang Member and are in further fear of retribution as a result of the Defendant s offending... 6 I make no finding in relation to the truth of the contents of the affidavit. 3 QPrime intelligence report 12 May 2014, Second Respondent s transcript of interview, 27 July 2016, 94-95, lines Unsworn objection to Bail affidavit of the Second Respondent, dated 17 May 2014, [5]. 6 Unsworn objection to Bail affidavit of the Second Respondent, dated 17 May 2014, [7].

5 5 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) On 19 May 2014, the Second Respondent spoke with AD. During that conversation, the Second Respondent discussed with AD his concerns about either FP or others returning to again steal the motorcycle or other property belonging to AD. As a result of that conversation, the Second Respondent downloaded from QPrime, and printed, a copy of the watch-house photograph of FP and gave it to AD who stated that he wished to provide a copy of the photograph to security personnel working at the relevant address. 7 AD has stated that he asked for the photo to provide to security guards in the event they saw FP in the area. The Second Respondent had an equivocal recollection as to who initiated the provision of the photograph but did say he offered the photograph. 8 When asked his reason for providing the photograph to AD, the Second Respondent stated: He [AD] was a man of senior years...came across as...quite a decent...forthright type of person, seemed intelligent, sensible...i thought it would be prudent then to provide him a photo of FP...and encourage him to be vigilant, in the lookout for FP... returning after he made bail... 9 (i) FP was granted conditional bail on 20 May and was subsequently rearrested for breaching bail conditions. The Second Respondent filed with the Magistrates Court the 28 May 2014 affidavit, in which he deposed: In relation to his current offending, the Defendant was found in possession of a stolen Harley Davidson on 16 May 2014, stolen from an alleged member of the Criminal Motorcycle Gang The Defendant s relatives...are aware the motorcycle was stolen from a Criminal Motorcycle Gang member and are in further fear of retribution as a result of the Defendant s offending I make no finding as to the truth of the contents of the affidavit. (j) On 28 June 2014, another police officer in discussion with a security person in an unrelated matter observed the mugshot of FP and was told words to the effect it was the guy that stole AD s bike ; further AD gave it to me to keep an eye out for the guy who stole his motorcycle AD transcript of interview, 31 March 2016, 46, line Second Respondent s transcript of interview, 27 July 2016, 107, lines Second Respondent s transcript of interview, 27 July 2016, 72-73, lines Sworn objection to bail affidavit of Second Respondent dated 28 May 2014, [8]. 11 Sworn objection to bail affidavit of Second Respondent dated 28 May 2014, [5]. 12 Sworn objection to bail affidavit of Second Respondent dated 28 May 2014, [7]. 13 Second Respondent s statement, 30 March 2015, 295, [18]-[19].

6 6 (k) The other police officer stated that he had concerns as he was aware AD was believed to have Criminal Motorcycle Gang (CMG) connections and was actively looking for the suspect. 14 [9] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal should find the charge substantiated and misconduct proved. [10] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal will be required to make its own findings as to whether: (a) (b) (c) AD requested the photograph or the Second Respondent offered the photograph to AD on his own initiative; In deciding to give the photograph to AD, the Second Respondent should have had regard to the intelligence submission alleging that AD was a member of an Outlawed Motorcycle Gang (OMCG); There was no proper police purpose attached to the Second Respondent handing the photograph of FP to AD. [11] The Applicant submits that it is not contended the photograph was provided to AD for any benefit or nefarious purpose. The Applicant contends that the impropriety was in providing the photograph without giving due regard to all the surrounding circumstances including considerations of the privacy and safety of all persons, in particular, FP. [12] To resolve the first question, I find that in light of the Second Respondent s uncertainty on the point, the statement of AD should be preferred. I find that AD requested the photograph, rather than the Second Respondent volunteering the photograph. In the end, I do not think that a great deal turns on the point. The important fact is that the Second Respondent agrees he provided the photograph to AD. [13] The other matters which the Applicant has asked, I determine, require more detailed analysis. Charge [14] The charge against the Second Respondent was: Matter 1 That on the 19 th day of May 2014 at a location your conduct was improper in that you: (a) utilised [the QPS facility] QPrime to print a copy of a watch-house photograph of FP; and (b) provided a copy of this photograph to AD; (Sections 1.4 and 10.1 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990; s9(1)(f) of the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990; s16 (Improper use of 14 Second Respondent s statement, 30 March 2015, 296, [24].

7 7 QPS information) Standard of Practice Professional Conduct; s (User responsibilities) Information Management Manual) Further and better particulars Investigations have identified that: In relation to Matter 1(a) (i) On 13 May 2014, AD reported his Harley Davidson motorcycle stolen from...; (ii) The motorcycle was located, on 16 May 2014, in the possession of FP who was charged in relation to his possession of the vehicle; (iii) You were the corroborating officer in relation to the investigation and arrest of FP; (iv) You spoke with AD at a police station on 19 May 2014; and (v) You downloaded from QPrime and printed a copy of the watchhouse photograph of FP, while interacting with AD. In relation to Matter 1(b) (i) You discussed with AD his concerns about FP or others returning to...to again steal the motorcycle or other property; (ii) AD asked you for a copy of the photograph of FP; and (iii) You provided AD with a copy of the watch-house photograph of FP with a view to AD providing same to security personnel working at... Findings of the First Respondent [15] In the First Respondent s 10 May 2017 decision, it was found to the First Respondent s reasonable satisfaction that Matter 1 is not substantiated and the conduct does not amount to misconduct. The reasons for coming to this conclusion are: (a) (b) (c) Access to the photograph and the supply of it to AD, a victim of theft, appears to have been for a police purpose consistent with the Second Respondent s role; There is no evidence of any benefit gained or other nefarious purpose related to the provision of the image (other than unsubstantiated inferences put to you in an interview and to AD, which were rejected); and Service policy provides for the dissemination of images for operational purposes. First Respondent s submissions

8 8 [16] The First Respondent has taken the approach of providing assistance to the Tribunal where appropriate. The First Respondent has drawn the Tribunal s attention to Aldrich v Ross. 15 Issues [17] The relevant issues in this matter are: (a) (b) (c) (d) Does the relevant legislation provide for dissemination of photographs such as FP s watch-house photograph to members of the public? Was provision of the photograph for a justifiable operational purpose? Was provision of the photograph improper conduct? Do the Applicant s complaints of improper conduct fall outside the matters which can be considered by this Tribunal? Legislative framework for dissemination of photographs [18] The Applicant does not dispute that the relevant legislation and police manuals provide for the dissemination of images for operational purposes. The Applicant contends that the Second Respondent did not provide the photograph to AD for operational purposes and says that the Second Respondent should have completed a form to seek authorisation from the Commissioner to do so, pursuant to s 10.2 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) ( PSA Act ). [19] The Second Respondent traces the relevant provisions which he submits enabled him to lawfully provide the photograph to AD, as follows: (i) S10.1(c) of the PSA Act permits the disclosure of information that is authorised or permitted under the Act or another Act; (ii) S4.9 of the PSA Act allows the Commissioner to issue written directions in discharging his prescribed responsibility; (iii) (iv) the Operation Procedures Manual (OPM) is issued pursuant to the provisions of s4.9 of the PSA Act; the OPM at authorises the disclosure of information by Police seeking public assistance and in relation to images, where there is a justifiable operational reason for the release. An operational reason is to be consistent with the functions of the Police Service pursuant to s2.3 of the PSA Act and have a demonstrated legitimate or valid reason for such release; (v) s16 of the QPS Standard of Practice also allows release of information if it is for an official purpose related to the performance of duty; (vi) the form which the applicant asserts should have been completed seeking the Commissioner s permission for release of material, is a generic form relevant to use by members of the public, where the Commissioner of Police has not otherwise addressed the provision of 15 [2001] 2 QdR 235.

9 9 information. In this case release of the photograph is authorised by the OPM. [20] I accept the Second Respondent s submissions and find that the Second Respondent was able to lawfully provide the photograph to AD, subject to the provisos in the OPM being met. I agree with the Second Respondent that it was not necessary for the form referred to by the Applicant to be submitted by the Second Respondent because release of the photograph is authorised by the OPM. Was provision of the photograph for a justifiable operational purpose? [21] The evidence of the Second Respondent as to the reason he provided the photograph to AD is: (a) (b) (c) (d) To enable him to identify FP should FP return to the venue to monitor the vehicles or attempt to steal any vehicle; 16 Because he thought AD could assist in solving further crime likely to be committed by FP; 17 He considered AD was fit to be a potential informant/witness to any further offending by FP; 18 and He considered the disclosure of the information was reasonably necessary for the prevention and detection of further offences by FP. 19 [22] The Second Respondent s evidence is that he was aware of FP s criminal history and he thought it was likely that FP would breach his Bail conditions and return to the crime scene to again steal AD s motorcycle or another vehicle. The Second Respondent knew that FP had a buyer for the motorcycle prior to it being recovered. 20 [23] I accept that all those matters as legitimate reasons for the Second Respondent to provide a photograph of FP to AD, to enable AD to keep a watch out for FP. [24] There is no reason for me to disbelieve the Second Respondent s evidence. He is a senior and experienced police officer. The Second Respondent was sworn into the Queensland Police Service on 29 May He commenced in the CIB in 1994 and remains in the CIB. [25] I note that during the interview with the Second Respondent, the interviewer commented that the Second Respondent was: coming across as very truthful and open and honest. 21 [26] By reference to s 2.3 of the PSA Act I find that the reasons given for providing the photograph are justifiable operational reasons consistent with the functions of the 16 Submissions of Second Respondent in Disciplinary hearing, Ibid Ibid Ibid Submissions of the Second Respondent to the Disciplinary Hearing, Interview, 40, line 1342.

10 10 Police Service. 22 That is, to prevent further criminal offences, to detect offenders and to protect the community from the actions of criminal offenders. [27] As a result, I reject the submissions of the Applicant that the purpose for which the Second Respondent provided the photograph did not constitute an operational purpose. Was provision of the photograph nevertheless improper? [28] Despite finding that provision of the photograph was for an operational reason consistent with the functions of the Police Service, the question remains whether provision of the photograph was nevertheless improper for other reasons asserted by the Applicant, that is: (a) (b) (c) The Second Respondent did not have proper regard to the information contained within the intelligence report that identified AD as an associate of an OMCG, which information he had, on two separate occasions, deposed to in affidavit material in objections to FP s Bail; The Second Respondent, in accessing for the purpose of release and then releasing the photograph, failed to have sufficient regard to safety considerations which should have been obvious when regard was had to the content of the intelligence report; and An inference should be drawn that there was a live risk to FP to which the Second Respondent had turned his mind and put before the Court in the Objection to Bail affidavit of 16 May Matters alleged do not form part of the charge [29] This proceeding relates to a matter of alleged misconduct on the part of the Second Respondent. Misconduct is defined to mean conduct that: (a) is disgraceful, improper or unbecoming of an officer; or (b) shows unfitness to be or continue to be an officer; or (c) does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a Police Officer. 23 [30] The Second Respondent submits that the term misconduct is broad and as noted by Mr Thomas QC, in Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission and Anor: 24 the definition is so wide that there should be particulars to show which part of the definition is relied on, and of the conduct which is said to constitute it. [31] The Direction to attend a disciplinary hearing refers to improper conduct as the part of the definition of misconduct relied upon. 22 Heffernan v Harris ex parte Heffernan [1992] QCA PSA Act, s [2014] QCATA 326, [73].

11 11 [32] The Second Respondent argues that the matters raised by the Applicant did not form part of the particulars of the charge and therefore need not be answered. On the Second Respondent s case, the inquiry for the Tribunal is did the Second Respondent s conduct, as particularised, amount to misconduct when he accessed QPrime, printed the photograph and provided it to AD, because it was done without an official purpose? [33] The Second Respondent says that the Applicant s allegations are not particularised in the charge as forming part of the conduct relied on to allege the misconduct, accordingly, they fall outside the matters to be considered by the Tribunal. That is, the Tribunal must only consider the charges as brought. 25 It may not consider evidence which is not relevant to the charges as framed by the regulatory body or person. [34] The Second Respondent also asserts that because of the wording in s 10.1(c) of the PSA Act, once an operational purpose for provision of the photograph is established there is no need for any further exploration of impropriety. [35] To deal with the Second Respondent s first contention, it is true that the allegations by the Applicant are not expressly set out as particulars of improper conduct. [36] Dr Forbes in his text Justice in Tribunals writes that a person accused of misconduct is entitled to know in advance not only the rule allegedly infringed, but also how it was infringed. Dr Forbes says that a charge is one thing, particulars are another. A charge identifies the legal duty or prohibition, while particulars set out the facts that are said to call for the orders proposed. Particulars put a party on his guard as to the case he has to meet and to enable him to prepare for the hearing. 26 [37] The alleged omissions of the Second Respondent did not form part of the charge and particulars at the time the Second Respondent was asked to make his response. [38] The Applicant argues that the obligations it relies on are contained in the legislation referred to in the charge, especially s1 6 of the QPS Standard of Practice which requires: a level of accountability and trust that the information will only be used for official purposes. [39] I do not think reference in the charge to the underpinning legislation is sufficiently clear for it to be beyond doubt that the Second Respondent is being asked to justify why he should not suffer a penalty because he failed to make a proper assessment of a risk to safety. [40] I conclude as submitted by the Second Respondent that it is beyond the scope of this review to consider matters not particularised in the original charge. I must review the decision of the First Respondent by reference to the charge and its particulars, the material before the First Respondent and the Objection to bail affidavits. [41] Despite the Second Respondent s contention that the scope of the review is limited to matters particularised in the charge, the Second Respondent has made submissions in relation to the matters raised by the Applicant. I consider it 25 Lee v Crime and Corruption Commission [2014] QCATA 326, [9]. 26 JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals, Third Edition, The Federation Press, 2010,

12 12 appropriate to address those submissions along with the Applicant s submissions. I have taken this course in the event that I am wrong in the conclusion I have reached and because the same end point is reached. [42] I accept the submission of the Second Respondent that the type of review proceedings we are here concerned with is focused on the material before the First Respondent. This review is not a hearing de novo. There is no opportunity to resolve conflicts in the evidence through the giving of evidence by witnesses and crossexamination. The Applicant bears the onus of proving that the original decision was wrong. 27 [43] The Applicant asserts that it was a risk to the safety of FP which required the Second Respondent to give weight to the intelligence report and to make enquiries as to its veracity before releasing the photograph. However, I cannot determine the extent of risk to safety alleged by the Applicant. I have no real evidence that AD was an associate of an OMCG. There is merely an allegation that he was. I cannot determine that any reprisal against FP was likely on the evidence. [44] The Applicant asserts that the Objection to bail affidavits demonstrate the Second Respondent was aware of a risk to the safety of FP and the risk of reprisal against FP, yet he nevertheless provided a photograph of FP to AD. The relevant parts of the affidavits are plainly speculation and hearsay. In the circumstances, the affidavits can be accorded little weight. As a general observation, I think that how matters are put to a Magistrate on a bail application involving an apparently recalcitrant criminal are different to the considerations attending a face to face meeting with AD and the exercise of judgment as to the prudence of providing a photograph. [45] The Applicant asks that I draw an inference that, at the time the Second Respondent provided AD with the photograph, the Second Respondent was aware of a risk to the safety of FP, because of the contents of the Objection to bail affidavits. That is not an ineluctable conclusion from the material before me. The Second Respondent submits that has never denied that AD was referred to in the intelligence report as an alleged associate of an OMCG, but the intelligence report must be balanced with the assessment made by him when he met AD in person. The Second Respondent s transcript of interview reveals that he considered AD s age, presentation as an intelligent man, that he was employed and that he had no criminal history, before providing the photograph to AD. The Second Respondent checked AD s status before providing the photograph. I do not consider it unreasonable for a police officer of the Second Respondent s experience and seniority to have made the judgment that he did. [46] The Applicant submits that I should draw a Jones v Dunkel 28 inference against the Second Respondent because he has not sought to adduce evidence which explains the conflict between the Objection to bail affidavits and his conduct in providing AD the photograph. The Applicant says that I cannot speculate as to what evidence the Second Respondent may have given in relation to the apparent conflict. It is not necessary for me to speculate. The Second Respondent has given a full and honest 27 Officer JGB v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski and Anor [2016] QCAT 348, [47] [76]. 28 (1959) 101 CLR 298.

13 13 account of his conduct which addresses why he provided the photograph. I do not consider there is any basis to draw the inference suggested. [47] In all, I accept the Second Respondent s submission that the decision of the First Respondent should not be overturned because of further allegations of omissions on his part, which were not put as particulars of the charge of improper conduct. In any event, I am unable on the evidence before me to conclude that the Second Respondent acted improperly by failing to give sufficient weight to the intelligence report and a risk to safety, said to be obvious from the report. Is a finding of an operational purpose all that is necessary to conclude there has been no improper conduct? [48] The Applicant submits that the First Respondent has given insufficient reasons to determine what consideration was given to the propriety of the Second Respondent s conduct and that the First Respondent appears to have stopped his consideration once a police purpose was identified. [49] The Applicant submits that what is required is a balancing of competing considerations, such as safety, prejudice to other investigations, protection of methodologies and prejudice to a fair trial. [50] I accept that submission. However, no particulars relating to any of those considerations accompanies the charge. Nor is there any evidence before me to which I can attribute any weight which suggests that those elements were present on the facts of this matter. [51] On the contrary, the material discloses that the Second Respondent provided the photograph to AD for a justifiable operational purpose based on legitimate reasons after determining that AD had no criminal history and otherwise appeared to be a reliable person. [52] The Second Respondent has submitted that it is sufficient for an operational purpose to be identified and that there is no need for an artificial overlay of propriety. The Second Respondent says that is consistent with the wording of s 10.1 of the PSA Act. The proposition is unattractive. The section is directed to the commission of an offence through improper disclosure of information. I accept that it may be the end of an enquiry as to whether an offence has been committed if it is found that disclosure is authorised or permitted, but I do not consider that it is the end of the enquiry in relation to misconduct. It is possible that the particulars of a charge of improper conduct in disclosing information may suggest a standard of conduct which falls below that reasonably expected of a police officer, although no offence is committed. That is not the case here for the reasons set out in this decision. Conclusion [53] For the reasons set out in this decision, the decision of the First Respondent is confirmed. Sanction and Costs [54] Because of my decision there is no reason to determine an appropriate sanction. Only the Applicant has made submissions in relation to sanction. If for completeness

14 14 the Applicant requires me to address this point on the basis that I am wrong in my conclusion, the Applicant should notify the Respondents and the Tribunal by 29 January I will then require submissions from the First and Second Respondents to be filed and served by 5 February [55] The Second Respondent has sought his costs of the proceeding. I order that the Second Respondent file and serve any submissions in relation to costs by 29 January The Applicant and First Respondent are to file any submissions in relation to costs by 5 February 2019.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321

More information

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NO/S: MATTER TYPE: Patty v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2018] QCAT 387 JON VICTOR PATTY (applicant) v

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Dariush-Far v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCA 21 ALEXANDER HAMID DARIUSH-FAR (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT

More information

Criminal Procedure Act 2009

Criminal Procedure Act 2009 Examinable excerpts of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 as at 2 October 2017 CHAPTER 2 COMMENCING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PART 2.1 WAYS IN WHICH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED 5 How a criminal proceeding

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Scrivener v DPP [2001] QCA 454 PARTIES: LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent/respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Cornwall [2005] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v CORNWALL, Jason Colin (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2005 DC No 147 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Barbaro & Anor [2015] QSC 346 PARTIES: THE QUEEN (respondent) v ROSSARIO DOM BARBARO (first applicant) and CHRISTOS PANAGAKOS (second applicant) FILE NO: 679 of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Witheyman v Van Riet & Ors [2008] QCA 168 PARTIES: PETER ROBERT WITHEYMAN (applicant/appellant) v NICHOLAS DANIEL VAN RIET (first respondent) EKARI PARK PTY LTD ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Drakos & Anor v Keskinides [03] QCA 9 PARTIES: HAROLD STANLEY DRAKOS and CONSTANTINE GEORGE CASTRISOS trading under the name, firm or style of H. DRAKOS & COMPANY,

More information

CORRUPT CONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY

CORRUPT CONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY CORRUPT CONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY DOCUMENT CONTROL Document Name: Version: 002 Corrupt Conduct and Public Interest Disclosure Policy Approved by: Board Date approved: 27 August 2015

More information

Introduction. Appearing in the Coronial jurisdiction

Introduction. Appearing in the Coronial jurisdiction Very narrow scope for today Introduction Appearing in the Coronial jurisdiction Ed Whitton- Lawyer, Legal Aid Queensland - Serious Crime. The basics- What to do and to know when you end up with an inquest

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Halilovic [2014] QSC 5 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 467 of 2014 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DARIO HALILOVIC (applicant) V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Burragubba & Anor v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines & Anor (No 2) [2017] QSC 265 ADRIAN BURRAGUBBA (first applicant) LINDA BOBONGIE, LESTER BARNADE,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 339 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Cant v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] QSC 62 CRAIG CANT (applicant) v COMMONWEALTH

More information

NATIONAL INSTRUCTION 2 of 2013 THE MANAGEMENT OF FINGERPRINTS, BODY-PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES

NATIONAL INSTRUCTION 2 of 2013 THE MANAGEMENT OF FINGERPRINTS, BODY-PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES NATIONAL INSTRUCTION 2 of 2013 THE MANAGEMENT OF FINGERPRINTS, BODY-PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: CHAPTER 2: CHAPTER 3: CHAPTER 4: CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER 7: CHAPTER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Shorten v Bell-Gallie [2014] QCA 300 PARTIES: IAN RODGER WILLIAM SHORTEN (applicant) v SHIRLEY BELL-GALLIE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11869 of 2013 QCAT Appeal

More information

CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Wilson [2013] QCAT 307. Occupational regulation matters

CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Wilson [2013] QCAT 307. Occupational regulation matters CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Wilson [2013] QCAT 307 PARTIES: APPLICATION NUMBER: MATTER TYPE: HEARING DATE: HEARD AT: DECISION OF: Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant) v Alan Neil Wilson

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Alajbegovic [2014] QSC 6 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 468 of 2014 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BANE ALAJBEGOVIC (applicant) V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Neil Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 6923 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Holland & Anor. v. Queensland Law Society Incorporated & Anor. [2003] QSC 327 GREGORY IAN HOLLAND

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club Inc [2018] QSC 71 PARTIES: BERNICE ELAINE PETERSEN (applicant) v PROSERPINE GOLF CLUB INC ACN 88 906 996 219 (respondent) FILE NO/S:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297 IAN JAMES ERICSON (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC 492. FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Plaintiff

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC 492. FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2014-404-002664 [2015] NZHC 492 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for judicial review FRANCISC CATALIN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Brisbane City Council v Gerhardt [2016] QCA 76 PARTIES: BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (applicant) v TREVOR WILLIAM GERHARDT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 8728 of 2015

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Ford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 440 PARTIES: R v FORD, Garry Robin (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2006 DC No

More information

College Policy SUBJECT: NUMBER: 6.4. Anti-Fraud and Theft Policy ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE: 12/16/09 REVISED: Purpose

College Policy SUBJECT: NUMBER: 6.4. Anti-Fraud and Theft Policy ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE: 12/16/09 REVISED: Purpose College Policy SUBJECT: Anti-Fraud and Theft Policy NUMBER: ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE: REVISED: 6.4 12/16/09 Purpose Delaware County Community College is and wishes to be seen by all as being honest and opposed

More information

The court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or by other

The court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or by other PART 8 : CHAPTER 1: EVIDENCE GENERAL 8.1 Power of court to control evidence (32.1) (1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to (c) the issues on which it requires evidence; the nature

More information

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Waterman & Ors v Logan City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 44 NORMAN CECIL WATERMAN AND ELIZABETH HELEN WATERMAN AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mullen [2006] QCA 317 PARTIES: R V MULLEN, Todd Kenneth (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2006 DC No 3220 of 2005 DC No 1341 of 2006 DC No 1512 of 2006 DC No

More information

This Bill would amend the Magistrate s Courts Act, Cap. 116A to (a)

This Bill would amend the Magistrate s Courts Act, Cap. 116A to (a) Explanatory Memorandum After Page 26 2016-03-16 OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill would amend the Magistrate s Courts Act, Cap. 116A to make better provision for committal proceedings under the Act by requiring

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY

More information

OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY

OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY DOCUMENT CONTROL Document Name: Version: 001 Official Misconduct and Public Interest Disclosure Policy Approved by: Board Date approved: 29 May

More information

Privacy. Purpose. Scope. Policy. Appendix A

Privacy. Purpose. Scope. Policy. Appendix A Privacy NZQA Quality Management System Policy Appendix A Purpose To ensure NZQA and personnel meet the legal obligations under the Privacy Act 1993 and in relation to its functions under section 246A of

More information

Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995

Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 Version: 28.4.2008 South Australia Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 An Act to regulate security and investigation agents; to repeal the Commercial and Private Agents Act 1986; and for other purposes.

More information

IBSA Harassment Policy

IBSA Harassment Policy IBSA Harassment Policy 1. Title This policy is referred to as the IBSA Harassment Policy. 2. Statements Of Purpose 2.1. This policy is passed by the IBSA Executive Board pursuant to sections 2.1, 2.2.4

More information

Jury Directions Act 2015

Jury Directions Act 2015 Examinable excerpts of Jury Directions Act 2015 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes 3 Definitions Part 1 Preliminary The purposes of this Act are (a) to reduce the complexity of jury directions in criminal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)

More information

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 Date of Assent: 17 December 2004 Operative Date: 1 May 2005 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Application of the Act 4 Office of Ombudsman 5 Functions and jurisdiction

More information

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83 New South Wales Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 New South Wales Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence

More information

Complaints to the Ombudsman

Complaints to the Ombudsman Complaints to the Ombudsman CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman 2 Complaints to the Queensland Ombudsman 4 Legal Notices 9 2016 Caxton Legal Centre Inc. queenslandlawhandbook.org.au

More information

AIA Australia Limited

AIA Australia Limited AIA Australia Limited Privacy policies & procedures May 2010 The Power of We AIA.COM.AU AIA Australia Limited Privacy policies & procedures Contents Purpose 3 Policy 3 National Privacy Principles Policy

More information

SPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT

SPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT SPECULATIVE FEE AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. In this agreement, the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned to them: 1.1 the senior counsel means Anthony Morris Q.C. of T. J. Ryan Chambers,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Lowe v Director-General, Department of Corrective Services [2004] QSC 418 PETER ANTHONY LOWE (applicant) v DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES

More information

Organised Crime and the Law in Queensland. Nick Clark & Jackie Charles

Organised Crime and the Law in Queensland. Nick Clark & Jackie Charles Organised Crime and the Law in Queensland Nick Clark & Jackie Charles Rule of Law Syllabus Sources of Qld law Presumption of Innocence Right to Silence Bail procedures Consequences of conviction Nomenclature

More information

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2018] QCATA 140 PARTIES: APPLICATION NO: ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO: MATTER TYPE: TAMMY BRADSHAW (applicant)

More information

2016 No. 41 POLICE. The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

2016 No. 41 POLICE. The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 S T A T U T O R Y R U L E S O F N O R T H E R N I R E L A N D 2016 No. 41 POLICE The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 Made - - - - 17th February 2016 Coming into operation - 1st June

More information

THE CKC DISCIPLINARY PROCESS TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE CKC DISCIPLINARY PROCESS TABLE OF CONTENTS CANADIAN KENNEL CLUB CLUB CANIN CANADIEN THE CKC DISCIPLINARY PROCESS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction... 2 2. Appointment of the Discipline and Appeal Committees... 3 3. Role of the Discipline and

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tynan & Anor v Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 367 PARTIES: DAVID PATRICK TYNAN and JUDITH GARCIA TYNAN (plaintiffs) v FILMANA PTY LTD ACN 080 055 429 (first

More information

PRIVACY ACT 1993 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION...3

PRIVACY ACT 1993 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION...3 PRIVACY ACT 1993 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION...3 1. THE PRIVACY ACT AND THESE GUIDELINES...3 2. KEY ASPECTS OF THE PRIVACY ACT...4 PART II Information privacy principles...4 PART IV Good reasons for refusing

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Coss [2016] QCA 44 PARTIES: R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2015 DC No 113 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

Resolving tenancy disputes

Resolving tenancy disputes Tenancy Facts Information for tenants and residents in Queensland Resolving tenancy disputes When you rent a place to live in Queensland, you have rights and responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies

More information

Introduction 2. What is Self-representation? 2. Who Can Self-represent? 2. Help for Self-represented Litigants 3

Introduction 2. What is Self-representation? 2. Who Can Self-represent? 2. Help for Self-represented Litigants 3 Self-representation CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 What is Self-representation? 2 Who Can Self-represent? 2 Help for Self-represented Litigants 3 Practical Tips for Self-represented Litigants 4 Resources

More information

GUIDELINES ON COMPENSATION FUND CLAIMS PROCEDURES. Overview

GUIDELINES ON COMPENSATION FUND CLAIMS PROCEDURES. Overview GUIDELINES ON COMPENSATION FUND CLAIMS PROCEDURES Overview These Guidelines outline the general principles that will guide the Law Society of Ireland (the Society ) in the exercise of its functions regarding

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 21 TOGITO PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PIONEER INVESTMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (first defendant)

More information

Number 22 of 1984 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 REVISED. Updated to 28 August 2017

Number 22 of 1984 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 REVISED. Updated to 28 August 2017 Number 22 of 1984 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 REVISED Updated to 28 August 2017 This revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with

More information

Whistleblower Protection Act 10 of 2017 (GG 6450) ACT

Whistleblower Protection Act 10 of 2017 (GG 6450) ACT (GG 6450) This Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not yet been brought into force. It will come into force on a date set by the Minister in the Government Gazette. ACT To provide for the establishment

More information

Defence Forces (Forensic Evidence) Bill General Scheme

Defence Forces (Forensic Evidence) Bill General Scheme Defence Forces (Forensic Evidence) Bill 2015 General Scheme February 2015 Part 1: Preliminary and General Head 1: Head 2: Head 3: Head 4: Head 5: Short title and commencement Definitions Application of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

Funeral Planning Authority Rules

Funeral Planning Authority Rules Funeral Planning Authority Rules 1. GENERAL 1.1 Interpretation In these Rules: "Appellant" means the party serving a Disciplinary Appeal Notice in accordance with Rule 7.9.1; "Applicant" means a person

More information

PSD: COMPLAINTS & MISCONDUCT Policy & Procedures

PSD: COMPLAINTS & MISCONDUCT Policy & Procedures PSD: COMPLAINTS & MISCONDUCT Policy & Procedures Reference No. DCC/003/14 Policy Sponsor Deputy Chief Constable Policy Owner Head of the Professional Standards Department Policy Author Redacted Business

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED ON: DELIVERED AT: HEARING DATE: JUDGE: ORDER: CATCHWORDS: Old Newspapers P/L v Acting Magistrate

More information

FACT SHEET. Juveniles (children aged 16 or under):

FACT SHEET. Juveniles (children aged 16 or under): FACT SHEET Introduction Arrest and Bail It is important for our clients to have an appreciation of their rights when it comes to such things as being arrested or being granted bail. However, in the event

More information

Freedom of Information. Adequacy of reasons

Freedom of Information. Adequacy of reasons Freedom of Information Adequacy of reasons There is no general rule of the common law that requires reasons to be given for administrative decisions: Osmond v Public Service Board of NSW. Notwithstanding,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN

More information

Data Protection Policy and Procedure

Data Protection Policy and Procedure Data Protection Policy and Procedure Reference No. P09:2007 Implementation date 12022008 Version Number Version 2.0 Reference No: Name. Linked documents Policy Section Procedure Section Yes Yes Suitable

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Bettson Properties Pty Ltd & Anor v Tyler [2018] QSC 153 PARTIES: BETTSON PROPERTIES PTY LTD ACN 009 873 152 AND TOBSTA PTY LTD ACN 078 818 014 (applicants) v PAULINE

More information

Singapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act

Singapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second

More information

National Framework for Ethical Behaviour and Integrity in Basketball. Date adopted by BA Board 3 April 2017

National Framework for Ethical Behaviour and Integrity in Basketball. Date adopted by BA Board 3 April 2017 National Framework for Ethical Behaviour and Integrity in Basketball Date adopted by BA Board 3 April 2017 Date Effective 1 July 2017 Table of Contents PREAMBLE... i Australian Basketball Values and Principles

More information

Whistleblower Protection 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 711 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 2010

Whistleblower Protection 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 711 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 2010 Whistleblower Protection 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 711 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 2010 2 Laws of Malaysia ACT 711 Date of Royal Assent...... 2 June 2010 Date of publication in the Gazette......... 10 June

More information

LAW ADMISSIONS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 1 DISCLOSURE GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

LAW ADMISSIONS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 1 DISCLOSURE GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION LAW ADMISSIONS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 1 DISCLOSURE GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION 1. PURPOSES OF THESE GUIDELINES An applicant for admission is required to satisfy the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 005 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993 Before The President Mr Justice Davies Justice White [Kelsey and Mansfield v. Hill] BETWEEN: MICHAEL STUART KELSEY

More information

THE CRIMINAL LAW (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE, 1968

THE CRIMINAL LAW (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE, 1968 THE CRIMINAL LAW (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE, 1968 SECTIONS 1. Short title and extent. 2. Definitions. 3. Trial of scheduled offences. (W.P. Ord. II of 1968) C O N T E N T S 4. Cognizance of scheduled

More information

Releasing personal information to Police and law enforcement agencies: Guidance on health and safety and Maintenance of the law exceptions

Releasing personal information to Police and law enforcement agencies: Guidance on health and safety and Maintenance of the law exceptions Releasing personal information to Police and law enforcement agencies: Guidance on health and safety and Maintenance of the law exceptions October 2017 CONTENTS Purpose of this Guide... 3 Voluntary requests

More information

Surveillance Devices Act 2007

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 Surveillance Devices Act 2007 As at 3 April 2013 Long Title An Act to regulate the installation, use, maintenance and retrieval of surveillance devices; to repeal the Listening Devices Act 1984; and for

More information

Whistleblower Protection Policy

Whistleblower Protection Policy Responsible Officer: SVP - Chief Compliance & Audit Officer Responsible Office: EC - Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services Issuance Date: April 23, 2015 Effective Date: May 1, 2015 Last Review Date: March

More information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO . THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASES NOS. SLUCRD 2007/0653, 0669 & 0670 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO Claimant Defendant Appearances:

More information

$46, in Canadian Currency (In rem), Respondent. June 16, 2010; with subsequent written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION

$46, in Canadian Currency (In rem), Respondent. June 16, 2010; with subsequent written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION CITATION: Attorney General of Ontario v. CDN. $46,078.46, 2010 ONSC 3819 COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-404140 DATE: 20100705 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Attorney General of Ontario, Applicant AND:

More information

Fraud. Original Implementation: January 28, 1997 Last Revision: November 2, 2015 INTRODUCTION

Fraud. Original Implementation: January 28, 1997 Last Revision: November 2, 2015 INTRODUCTION Fraud Original Implementation: January 28, 1997 Last Revision: November 2, 2015 INTRODUCTION This policy establishes procedures and responsibilities for detecting, reporting, and resolving instances of

More information

Cricket Australia. Anti-Corruption Code

Cricket Australia. Anti-Corruption Code Cricket Australia Anti-Corruption Code Effective from 25 September 2017 CRICKET AUSTRALIA INTEGRITY UNIT: 60 JOLIMONT STREET JOLIMONT VICTORIA 3002 Email: anti-corruption@cricket.com.au Reporting Hotline:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Estate of Carrigan (deceased) [2018] QSC 206 PARTIES: In the Estate of GRANT PATRICK CARRIGAN, Deceased FILE NO/S: SC No 5708 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DPP (Cth) v Corby [2007] QCA 58 PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH) (applicant) v SCHAPELLE CORBY (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 1365 of 2007

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526 PARTIES: OWEN, Ronald (applicant/appellant) v EDWARDS, Darren Andrew (respondent) FILE NO/S: CA No 106 of 2006 DC No 17 of 2005 DIVISION:

More information

RECORDING OF EVIDENCE.

RECORDING OF EVIDENCE. 1 RECORDING OF EVIDENCE. The primary questions are cropup in the mind of audience would be what evidence mean and who has to record such evidence and what is the purpose of recording of evidence. The term

More information

The learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.

The learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest. Unit 11 Title: Criminal Litigation Level: 3 Credit Value: 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the powers of the police to arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigating a criminal

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HOUGHTON, Nicola Louise Registration No: 130502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2015 Outcome: Erasure (with immediate order) Nicola Louise HOUGHTON, Verified competency

More information

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64 New South Wales Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Relationship to other laws and matters 2 4 Definitions 2 5 Eligible Judges

More information

The Accountancy Scheme

The Accountancy Scheme Scheme Financial Reporting Council 1 June 2014 The Accountancy Scheme The FRC is responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. We set the UK Corporate

More information

THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9

THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9 THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9 1. On Saturday 3 March 2012 Q9, a highly trained specialist and experienced firearms officer, shot and killed Anthony Grainger during a pre-planned

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

TENNIS AUSTRALIA DISCIPLINARY POLICY

TENNIS AUSTRALIA DISCIPLINARY POLICY TENNIS AUSTRALIA DISCIPLINARY POLICY Contents... 1 1. Application and Administration... 3 2. Categories of Offences... 4 3. Minor offences... 6 4. Serious offences... 7 5. Appeals procedures... 11 Notice

More information

Clause 10.4 of the Legal Aid ACT General Panel Services Agreement requires the practitioner to comply with certain practice standards.

Clause 10.4 of the Legal Aid ACT General Panel Services Agreement requires the practitioner to comply with certain practice standards. Practice Standards About these Practice Standards The Legal Aid Commission (ACT)() has established a panel of private legal practitioners to provide legal services to legally assisted persons (the General

More information

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICY 1 Policy Statement At Tourism and Events Queensland (TEQ), we believe that Public Interest Disclosures (PIDs) and the ability to make such disclosures without retaliation or reprisal is critically important,

More information

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search

More information

Fiji: Proceeds of Crime Act 1997 (as amended)

Fiji: Proceeds of Crime Act 1997 (as amended) The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL

INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL 3 rd Edition, 2 March 2018 Copyright 2018 Fédération Equestre Internationale Reproduction strictly reserved Fédération Equestre Internationale t +41 21 310 47 47

More information