Loading...
Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor (No 2)

 

[2020] QCAT 328

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor (No 2) [2020] QCAT 328

PARTIES:

Helen Maree Newman

(applicant)

v

Deputy Commissioner Tracy Linford APM

Crime and Corruption Commission

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR246-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

The Tribunal confirms the decision of Deputy Commissioner Tracy Linford APM made on 24 June 2019 to make a disciplinary declaration against Helen Maree Newman on the basis that had Helen Maree Newman remained employed with the Queensland Police Service, the following sanction would have been imposed:

Demotion from Sergeant to Senior Constable.

CATCHWORDS:

POLICE – INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION –DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT – QUEENSLAND ­– where findings made that misconduct proven and sanction imposed – where subject officer no longer a member of the Queensland Police Service – where disciplinary declaration issued – where subject officer applied to review the substantiation decision – where the Crime and Corruption Commission applied  to review the sanction decision – where allegations of misconduct were found to be substantiated – where subject officer provided false and misleading information to a superintendent of the Queensland Police Service and investigators of the Ethical Standards Command – whether sanction imposed is correct and preferable

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 219BA, s 219C,
s 219G(2), s 219B, s 219H, s 444, Schedule 2

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 1.4.

Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 3

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 20, s 66

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235

Re Bowen [1996] 2 Qd R 8

Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169

Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Barron and Anor [2015] QCAT 96

Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Paul Taylor & Anor [2018] QCAT 80

Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark [2012] QCA 228

Gee v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 33

Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593

Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 66

Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCATA 258

McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright [2011] QCATA 309

Murray v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCAT 583

Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor [2020] QCAT 179

Newman v Assistant Commissioner Condon (No 2) [2016] QCAT 448

Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397

Wadham v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 578

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

S H Hollands instructed by Gilshenan & Luton

First Respondent:

M D Nicolson instructed by Legal Services, Queensland Police Service

Second Respondent:

J Gorry, Crime and Corruption Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 20 May 2020, the Tribunal found one ground of misconduct presented against Sergeant Helen Newman to be substantiated and directed the respective parties to file and exchange written submissions addressing the question of sanction.[1]
  2. [2]
    Between 15 October 2017 and 20 March 2018, Ms Newman provided false and misleading information to a Superintendent of the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) and investigators attached to the Ethical Standard Command (‘ESC’). Further to that, Ms Newman’s conduct in providing false and misleading information was found by the Tribunal to be misconduct in that Ms Newman’s conduct does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer.
  3. [3]
    The one allegation of misconduct and relevant particulars concern the identification and location of official police diaries relating to Detective Inspector Colfs (‘Colfs’) and an intercept of a telephone conversation between Ms Newman and Colfs.
  4. [4]
    The present matter before the Tribunal is to review the Deputy Commissioner’s decision made on 24 June 2019 in relation to sanction. Relevantly, in the matter below the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied that Ms Newman’s conduct would have resulted in a sanction of demotion had Ms Newman remained a member of the QPS and issued a disciplinary declaration pursuant to Part 7A of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (‘PSAA’).
  5. [5]
    Ms Newman submits that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision should be set aside and by way of a substituted decision the Tribunal on review order a reduction in pay point from Sergeant 3.6 to 3.1 had Ms Newman remained in the QPS.[2] Ms Newman says that, amongst other things, the Tribunal on review must take into account and impose a sanction that reflects the ‘one off’ nature of the conduct, Ms Newman’s work history and excellent references. Ms Newman says she has received no personal gain from the conduct and was permitted by the QPS to remain in her substantive position of Sergeant, Support Officer in the District Office from the time of the investigation that commenced on 27 August 2017 until 14 August 2018 when she was stood down.[3]
  6. [6]
    On the other hand, the Crime and Corruption Commission (‘the CCC’) submit that the correct and preferable decision is dismissal. The CCC submit that Ms Newman’s conduct of providing false and misleading answers to a senior officer is deplorable.[4] The CCC submit that Ms Newman had every opportunity to correct these lies and made the decision not to even when confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the telephone intercept.[5] Further, the CCC says that Ms Newman knew of the importance of the diaries to the investigation into the police officer Colfs and chose not to disclose her knowledge of their location.[6]
  7. [7]
    The Deputy Commissioner says that the sanction, if Ms Newman remained employed with the QPS, imposed at first instance of demotion from Sergeant to Senior Constable is the appropriate sanction in the circumstances.[7]

The Tribunal’s role on review

  1. [8]
    The Tribunal is required to produce the correct and preferable decision.[8] It is appropriate to give ‘considerable weight’ to the findings of the decision-maker on the basis that the decision-maker might be thought to have ‘particular expertise in the managerial requirements of the police force’.[9] The Tribunal does, however, have a duty to bring the public perspective to bear and is bound to make its own decision on the evidence before it.[10]
  2. [9]
    In determining the correct and preferable decision and the sanction to be imposed, the purpose of disciplinary proceedings as provided under s 3 of the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld) applies: to protect the public; to uphold ethical standards within the QPS; and to promote and maintain public confidence in the QPS.[11] The object of disciplinary proceedings is to ‘protect the public, to maintain proper standards of conduct…and to promote the reputation of that body. The object is not to punish or exact retribution’.[12] The purpose of discipline is the ‘maintenance of public confidence in the police force, of the self-esteem of police officers and of efficiency’.[13]
  3. [10]
    In the present matter, the Tribunal is required to determine the correct and preferable decision and more importantly the appropriate sanction to be imposed in respect of the one allegation of misconduct that was found to be substantiated. An issue arises as to whether Ms Newman remains fit to continue serving as a police officer, had she remained employed with the QPS because the CCC argue that Ms Newman be dismissed from the QPS. On the other hand, the issue as to whether Ms Newman remains fit to continue in the position of Sergeant had she remained employed with the QPS is also relevant because the Deputy Commissioner argues that the sanction imposed at first instance being a demotion from Sergeant to Senior Constable is appropriate. As discussed above, Ms Newman, submits that a pay-point reduction from Sergeant 3.6 to 3.1 rather than a sanction of dismissal or demotion is correct and preferable.
  4. [11]
    In McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright,[14] the Honourable Thomas J said, and I agree that the effect of a demotion is very severe. The Honourable Thomas said:

The effect of demotion must be recognised as very severe. Apart from the disgrace associated with it, the demotion is accompanied by what is on any view a serious financial sanction.

Of course in more serious cases dismissal will be called for. In the present case we think that the appropriate response is demotion, accompanied by the equivalent of a serious fine. The only question is whether that which has been imposed is too great.[15]

  1. [12]
    The Deputy Commissioner submits and I accept that a disciplinary declaration may be made only if the disciplinary action that would have been taken against the former officer if the former officer’s employment had not ended would have been termination of employment or reduction in rank.[16] A reduction in rank, as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner and a sanction of dismissal, as proposed by the CCC have serious consequences for Ms Newman. If, on review, I find that Ms Newman should be reduced in rank or on the other hand dismissed from the QPS then a disciplinary declaration may be made.
  2. [13]
    In arriving at the correct and preferable decision I must, in exercising my discretion, balance all of the relevant factors including any relevant personal factors of the case ‘but [these] do not prevail over the protective disciplinary requirements’.[17] In Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Barron and Anor,[18] the Tribunal said, and I agree, that each case will ultimately ‘turn on its own facts’ because no two cases are identical and there are ‘a range of factors which will be relevant’.[19]

What is the correct and preferable decision?

  1. [14]
    I accept Ms Newman’s submission that she has an unblemished 28-year career and experience as a sworn police officer.[20] I also accept, as submitted by Ms Newman, that there was only one charge of misconduct and Ms Newman has received no personal gain in respect of the conduct that was found by the Tribunal on review to be substantiated.[21]
  2. [15]
    I also accept, as submitted by Ms Newman, that she remained in her substantive position of Sergeant, Support Officer to the District Superintendent from the time the investigation commenced on 27 August 2017 until 14 August 2018 when Ms Newman was stood down.
  3. [16]
    It is open for me to find on the evidence that up until 14 August 2018 when Ms Newman was stood down, she was performing her duties as a police officer to a ‘very high standard’ as recorded on Ms Newman’s mid-cycle Performance Planning and Appraisal (‘PPA’) review records on 8 June 2018.[22]
  4. [17]
    I do not accept, however, that a reduction in pay-point from Sergeant 3.6 to 3.1, on the basis that Ms Newman remained in the QPS, is an appropriate sanction that reflects the seriousness of the conduct and the senior position held by Ms Newman together with her 28 years’ experience as a police officer at the time of the conduct.
  5. [18]
    Ms Newman failed to disclose to ESC investigators that she had spoken to Colfs about her diaries. Further to that, Ms Newman was not forthcoming with information about Colfs’ diaries and gave false and misleading information to a Superintendent of the QPS and investigators attached to the ESC. Ms Newman, a Sergeant with 28 years’ experience as a police officer, failed to have regard to the trust members of the QPS and the community placed in her. In Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark[23] the Court of Appeal said, and I agree, that:

… Colleagues, whether superior or inferior in rank, ought to be able to have confidence in an officer’s integrity; confidence that he or she will perform his or her duty unswervingly without fear or favour.

  1. [19]
    On the other hand, I do not accept, as submitted by the CCC, that a sanction of dismissal is warranted in this matter. Ms Newman’s conduct in providing false and misleading answers to a senior officer is, as submitted by the CCC, deplorable.[24] I do not consider, however, that Ms Newman’s conduct is serious enough to warrant a sanction of dismissal.
  2. [20]
    The CCC refer me to five decisions (Caesar,[25] Wadham,[26] Kennedy,[27] Gee[28] and Shepherd[29]) that, as submitted, are said to provide guidance to the Tribunal as to the correct approach to be taken in this matter and the principles which may inform the correct and preferable decision.[30]
  3. [21]
    The matter of Caesar[31] involved a Senior Constable in the QPS who submitted 46 applications for various advertised positions and used examples on 574 occasions of work said to have been performed which had in fact been copied from the applications of eight other police officers. Mr Caesar admitted to his actions during his disciplinary interview and apologised for his actions. Further to that, Mr Caesar had a diagnosed mental health condition and engaged in the conduct over a period of many months during which time he made the applications with the goal of promotion or at least transfer away from his current posting. The Tribunal on review confirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s decision that Mr Caesar be dismissed from the QPS.
  4. [22]
    In Wadham[32] the subject officer knowingly transferred money on three separate occasions from the QPS social club account. Ms Wadham also accessed the QPS computer systems assuming the identify of a colleague and completed online training on his behalf. The Tribunal found on review that a sanction of dismissal was appropriate thereby confirming the Deputy Commissioner’s decision made at first instance.
  5. [23]
    The matters of Kennedy[33] and Gee[34] involved the misuse of a portable camp fridge that had been donated to the PCYC by a local business. The Tribunal on review found, amongst other things, that Mr Kennedy’s ‘manufactured excuse’ in respect of the misuse of the camp fridge was an aggravating feature.[35] The Tribunal on review set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s sanction of dismissal and imposed a six-month suspension from the QPS.
  6. [24]
    In Gee the Tribunal on review found that Ms Gee was untruthful during the disciplinary interviews, dishonestly applying to her use the amounts of $1,005 and $997.80 belonging to the Mt Isa PCYC. Ms Gee also provided false and misleading information in a job application and sexually harassed a colleague. The Tribunal on review found, in considering the totality of the matters, that dismissal was warranted.[36]
  7. [25]
    In Shepherd,[37] the subject officer was found to be dishonest with club funds to the value of $764.02 by using a debit card on nine occasions without the consent of the Mount Isa Police Recreation Club. The subject officer was also found to be deliberately untruthful during the disciplinary interviews. The Tribunal on review set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s decision and imposed a sanction of dismissal. The Tribunal found that Mr Shepherd was not fit to remain in the QPS not only because of this dishonest conduct but also because his effectiveness in the QPS was so ‘seriously undermined by what happened’.[38] The Tribunal on review also considered the effect of delay that was, as found, inordinate and notwithstanding found that the delay did not change the fact that Mr Shepherd was unfit to serve as a police officer.[39]
  8. [26]
    The CCC also refer me to the Tribunal’s findings about Ms Newman’s conduct and submit that her dishonesty is central to the determination of sanction.[40] The CCC submit that, and I accept, as held in Re Bowen[41] honesty is a characteristic of fundamental importance for a police officer. The CCC submit that by Ms Newman’s dishonesty she has demonstrated an unfitness to serve as a police officer.[42]
  9. [27]
    In Re Bowen, Demack J said that dishonesty erodes public confidence in the QPS and ‘affects the trust other members of the police service have in each other’.[43] Demack J found that the subject officer’s 30 years’ experience of meritorious service had kept him in the QPS and without those years of service, the three acts of official misconduct would have justified the officer’s dismissal.[44]
  10. [28]
    Similarly, in the present matter, it is open for me to find that Ms Newman’s 28 years’ experience as a police officer and her many references that attest to her good character and work history are relevant to the issue of whether Ms Newman remains fit to continue as a member of the QPS. I find that without those years of service and references, Ms Newman’s conduct that involved giving false and misleading information to a Superintendent and ESC investigators in circumstances where Ms Newman did not personally gain from the conduct, could have justified a sanction of dismissal from the QPS.
  11. [29]
    I have found that Ms Newman was at the time of the conduct and before she was stood down performing her duties at a very high standard. Although, I accept as submitted by the CCC that Ms Newman has never admitted her conduct or shown any remorse, such matters are not to be considered in isolation in exercising my discretion to arrive at the correct and preferable decision.
  12. [30]
    In the present matter, Ms Newman’s conduct took place during the investigation into the location of Colfs’ diaries. Unlike Caesar that involved conduct over many months with the subject officer’s goal (in terms of conduct) of achieving promotion or at least transfer away from his (Mr Caesar’s) current posting, in the present matter Ms Newman received no personal gain from her conduct. Inferences may, of course, be drawn by the Tribunal on review as to the reasons or motive for Ms Newman’s conduct such as, for example, Ms Newman was protecting Colfs’ diaries from being recovered by the QPS. The fact remains, however, that Ms Newman resigned from the QPS before the disciplinary proceedings were finalised. In the absence of any evidence before me as to Ms Newman’s motive or reasons for her conduct, I do not draw any inferences nor make any findings about the reasons why Ms Newman was untruthful and gave misleading information to a senior officer of the QPS and investigators of the ESC.
  13. [31]
    I have also considered Wadham, Kennedy, Gee and Shepherd. I do not find the decisions helpful in determining sanction in the present matter. In Wadham the subject officer was a Senior Constable and her conduct was found to be deceptive and misleading and more importantly the subject officer did not dispute in the Tribunal’s review proceeding that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.
  14. [32]
    In Gee the subject officer’s conduct was more serious than the conduct in the present matter involving Ms Newman. Gee involved misappropriation of property, dishonesty in dealing with superior officers in circumstances where the conduct continued over an extended period.
  15. [33]
    In Shepherd, the Tribunal on review found the evidence against the subject officer, a constable with 10 years’ experience in the QPS, to be overwhelming and that the subject officer had privately benefited on all nine occasions.
  16. [34]
    In the present matter, Ms Newman was, as found, untruthful and not forthcoming about Colfs’ diaries and when questioned by the ESC investigators she did not disclose what she knew about Colfs’ diaries. In my view, Ms Newman’s conduct is serious to the extent that she is no longer fit to remain a Sergeant of the QPS, had she remained in the QPS.
  17. [35]
    The position of Sergeant is a senior position and junior members of the QPS will look to their respective superiors for guidance and leadership. I agree with the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner in the disciplinary proceeding below that the maintenance of accountability and ethical health of the QPS is dependent upon senior officers such as Ms Newman promoting organisational values to junior members. The Deputy Commissioner said:

…police officers are required to work independently outside the confines of a traditional workplace, often with little direct supervision. This means that the maintenance of accountability and ethical health of the [QPS] as an organisation is dependent upon senior officers, such as [Ms Newman], promoting organisational values to junior members. As a support officer to a District Officer with 28 years’ service, [Ms Newman provides] a critical role promoting the ethical health of the [QPS] through leadership and supervision of junior members. Because of [Ms Newman’s] rank, [she is] well positioned to influence culture and performance at an operational level. As such, [her] conduct should at all times send a powerful message to members about expected standards of behaviour.[45]

  1. [36]
    I have considered Ms Newman’s submission that her conduct is more akin to the conduct identified in Newman v Assistant Commissioner Condon (No 2).[46] In Newman, Mr Newman a Senior Sergeant of the QPS was reduced in two ranks for a period of 12 months after which he returned to the rank of Sergeant 3.6. Mr Newman was found to have demonstrated good work since the commencement of the investigation and the Tribunal on review considered the period of time, being some four years, that had passed since his promotion to Senior Sergeant.
  2. [37]
    In the present matter, Ms Newman was promoted to Sergeant on 28 December 2009. Ms Newman’s conduct took place in or about August 2017 and continued until early 2018. Ms Newman gave false and misleading information to a Superintendent and ESC investigators. Such conduct undermines the confidence other members of the QPS would have in Ms Newman’s ability to continue in her role as Sergeant, had she remained employed in the QPS. Put simply, Ms Newman should have disclosed to the Superintendent and ESC investigators what she knew about Colfs’ diaries. Consistent with Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark, Ms Newman has failed to perform her duties as a Sergeant without ‘fear or favour’.[47]
  3. [38]
    I accept the CCC’s submission that Ms Newman had every opportunity to correct her lies and Ms Newman knew of the importance of the diaries to the investigation into Colfs and chose not to disclose her knowledge of their location.[48]
  4. [39]
    I also accept that Ms Newman’s conduct was not isolated. Ms Newman was not forthcoming when asked questions about Colfs’ diaries. Ms Newman’s dishonesty continued when she was questioned about whether she had had a telephone conversation with Colfs.
  5. [40]
    Ms Newman did not, however, gain any personal advantage by reason of her conduct. Ms Newman was a dedicated and loyal officer who gave 28 years of service to the Queensland community as reflected in the many references from police officers and community members who attest to her good character.[49] Further to that, at the time of the conduct Ms Newman was performing her duties to a high standard.
  6. [41]
    I am satisfied that Ms Newman’s conduct in providing false and misleading information to a Superintendent of the QPS and investigators of the ESC erodes public confidence and the confidence of other members of the QPS.[50] As held in Deputy Commissioner Stewart v Dark, untruthfulness is a ‘dangerous quality in a police officer’ and erodes public confidence and destroys trust.[51]
  7. [42]
    I find that the purpose of discipline is served in this matter by a demotion from Sergeant to Senior Constable. Having made that finding, I exercise my discretion to make a disciplinary declaration on the basis that had Ms Newman remained employed with the QPS the sanction of demotion from Sergeant to Senior Constable would have been imposed. The correct and preferable decision is to confirm the decision of Deputy Commissioner Tracy Linford APM made on 24 June 2019. I order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1]Tribunal’s directions dated 20 May 2020. See Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor [2020] QCAT 179.

[2]Submissions on sanction (of the applicant) filed 9 June 2020 and see submissions in reply filed 17 July 2020.

[3]Submissions on sanction (of the applicant) filed 9 June 2020, [11].

[4]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Further submissions on behalf of the first respondent – sanction filed 1 July 2020.

[8]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 19 and see the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (‘CC Act’), s 452. The matter proceeds under the previous statutory framework as in force before the commencement of the current CC Act (on 30 October 2019).

[9]Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235, 257-258 (Thomas J).

[10]Murray v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2011] QCAT 583, [40].

[11]Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld), s 3.

[12]Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593, 597.

[13]Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397, 412.

[14]McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright [2011] QCATA 309.

[15]McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright, [49]-[50].

[16]Further submissions on behalf of the first respondent filed 1 July 2020. See also s 7A.2(3) of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) prior to 30 October 2019.

[17]Crime and Corruption Commission v Acting Deputy Commissioner Barron and Anor [2015] QCAT 96, [26].

[18][2015] QCAT 96.

[19]Ibid, [72].

[20]Submissions on sanction (of the applicant) filed 9 June 2020.

[21]Submissions on sanction (of the applicant) filed 9 June 2020 and see submissions in reply filed 17 July 2020.

[22]Ibid.

[23][2012] QCA 228, [21].

[24]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020.

[25]Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169.

[26]Wadham v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 578.

[27]Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 66. See also Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCATA 258.

[28]Gee v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 33.

[29]Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Paul Taylor & Anor [2018] QCAT 80.

[30]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020, [21].

[31]Caesar v Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing [2017] QCAT 169.

[32]Wadham v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 578.

[33]Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 66. See also Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCATA 258.

[34]Gee v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 33.

[35]Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 66, [36].

[36]Gee v Deputy Commissioner Stewart [2012] QCAT 33.

[37]Crime and Corruption Commission v Assistant Commissioner Paul Taylor & Anor [2018] QCAT 80.

[38]Ibid, [86].

[39]Ibid, [88].

[40]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020, [13].

[41]Re Bowen [1996] 2 Qd R 8.

[42]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020, [13].

[43]Re Bowen [1996] 2 Qd R 8, 11.

[44]Ibid, 12.

[45]Section 21 material, Part A, p 627.

[46]Newman v Assistant Commissioner Condon (No 2) [2016] QCAT 448.

[47][2012] QCA 228, [21].

[48]Submissions on behalf of the applicant (by the CCC) filed on 3 July 2020.

[49]Ibid.

[50]See Re Bowen [1996] 2 Qd R 8, 12.

[51][2012] QCA 228, [12].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor (No 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Newman v Deputy Commissioner Linford APM & Anor (No 2)

  • MNC:

    [2020] QCAT 328

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Browne

  • Date:

    31 Aug 2020

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.
Help

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.