Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) - [2021] QIRC 95

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

Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)[2021] QIRC 95

Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)[2021] QIRC 95

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2021] QIRC 095

PARTIES: 

Reis, Craig Steven

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2020/277

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Fair Treatment

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2021

MEMBER:

Knight IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

  1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – appeal against a fair treatment decision – where original decision to substantiate allegation set aside by Commission – where fresh show cause process commenced – where allegation relates to Appellant accessing confidential patient information to gain a personal benefit – where decision-maker found Appellant gained a personal benefit from sexually explicit images and intimate pictures specifically sought during message exchanges with patient – whether decision fair and reasonable.

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Ambulance Service Act 1991

Chief Executive Guideline 01/17: Discipline

Criminal Code Act 1899 sch 1 ('Criminal Code')

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Industrial Relations Act 2016

Public Service Act 2008

CASES:

Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Kiao v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Hartigan IC, 28 August 2020)

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Mr Steven Reis appeals a disciplinary decision made by Deputy Commissioner Deanne Taylor-Dutton substantiating an allegation and confirming the existence of grounds for disciplinary action to be taken.[1] The substantiated allegation ('allegation three') was one of three originally included in a show cause process which commenced in October 2019 ('original show cause process').
  2. [2]
    In March 2020, Mr Reis appealed the outcome of the original show cause process and in particular, the substantiation of allegation three.[2]
  3. [3]
    In accordance with that direction, the Queensland Ambulance Service ('the Service') forwarded Mr Reis a fresh notice setting out the details of allegation three and relevant particulars, in late September 2020. Mr Reis was requested to respond to the allegation.
  4. [4]
    The Service eventually concluded that, again, allegation three was able to be substantiated. In the same correspondence, the decision-maker, having regard to various factors, including the nature of the conduct and s 18A of the Ambulance Service Act 1991, concluded grounds for disciplining Mr Reis had arisen. It is this decision that Mr Reis now seeks to appeal.
  5. [5]
    Determination of this appeal turns on whether the decision was fair and reasonable.
  6. [6]
    Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, I have concluded the decision was one that was fair and reasonable and, for that reason, pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, I confirm the decision.
  7. [7]
    My reasons follow.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [8]
    Mr Reis appeals the decision substantiating allegation three on the following grounds:
  1. the decision-maker conflated the reasoning regarding the grounds for discipline with the substantiation of allegation three, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to all matters considered by the Service;
  2. the decision-maker conflated the reasoning regarding the determination of the proposed penalty with the substantiation of allegation three, therefore failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to all matters considered by the Service;
  3. the Service relied on matters falling outside of the particulars provided in support of allegation three;
  4. the decision-maker infected the reasoning and disciplinary findings by including and considering matters that were not framed as allegations, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond;
  5. the decision-maker infected the reasoning and disciplinary findings by including and considering matters that were not framed as allegations, which allegations the Service had previously informed Mr Reis were unrelated to the disciplinary process, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond;
  6. the Service improperly exceeded the boundaries of the fresh show cause process in relation to allegation three;
  7. the Service re-opened the disciplinary process in relation to allegation one, retrospectively considering matters which fall outside the particulars provided in support of that allegation, and subsequently conflated the consideration of the proposed disciplinary action with such matters, some of which were previously stated to be unrelated;
  8. the Service introduced a new contention in respect of the grounds for discipline which had not previously been raised and fell outside the particulars, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond;
  9. the Service denied Mr Reis natural justice and acted in an unreasonable and unfair manner.

Outcome Sought

  1. [9]
    Mr Reis is seeking that the disciplinary decision be set aside, with a direction from this Commission that the matter be remitted to the Service and a fresh decision-maker appointed.
  2. [10]
    He contends that any new disciplinary process should be accompanied by a direction to the effect that the decision-maker is required to confine their considerations to allegation three. Moreover, he submits the decision-maker should be directed to confine any consideration of allegation three only to matters which have been particularised and of which Mr Reis has previously been provided with an opportunity to respond to.

Relevant Background

Fresh Show Cause Process

  1. [11]
    Having been directed by the Commission to commence a fresh show cause process in relation to allegation three, Mr Reis was issued with a show cause notice on 18 September 2020. Along with some background details relating to the history and reasons for the disciplinary process, the correspondence provided to Mr Reis detailed both the substance of the allegation and the relevant particulars as follows:

Background

...

On 14 March 2019, [the patient], a member of the public, attended the Toowoomba Station to make a formal complaint about your conduct[3].

…

[The patient] alleged that on Saturday 2 March 2019, you sent her a message through social media, namely Messenger. She alleges you confirmed your identity by referring to yourself as a paramedic[4] and then proceeded to exchange messages over the following days, some of which were a sexual nature[5].

…

I understand that you appeared at the Toowoomba Magistrates Court on 10 September 2019 to face the following charge: Use restricted computer without consent, under section 408E(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

I have been provided with a copy of the Verdict and Judgment record dated 10 September 2019 [6]. The verdict recorded was, as you are aware, a guilty plea.

…

On 27 August 2020, and in accordance with section 18M(1) of the [Ambulance Service Act 1991], A/Executive Director Corporate Services Ray Clarke reissued your suspension with remuneration until 27 November 2020.

Given all of the above it is now for me to provide you with an opportunity to respond to the following allegation.

Allegation 3

That between 2 March 2019 – 14 March 2019 you used the confidential patient information you inappropriately accessed for a personal benefit.

Particulars

  1. The QAS records demonstrate that on 2 March 2019, you accessed the Digital Ambulance Report Form (DARF) system at 0612hrs and viewed an electronic Ambulance Report Form (eARF), specifically no. 501233473 (Incident Number: 11116718). Whilst I have viewed the original, I provide to you a redacted version[7].
  2. This eARF is signed under your name and relates to an incident on 21 February 2019 where a patient, [the patient], was transported to Toowoomba Base Hospital.
  3. Your roster also confirms that you were on shift when you accessed this record on 2 March 2019 between 0600hrs and 1600hrs[8].
  4. I refer you to Attachment 1 where at page 4 'File Note', the [patient] reported that the [sic] you first messaged her at 0630 on 2 March 2019.
  5. The [patient] further stated that you messaged her in total 18 times on 2 March 2019, outlining that you were the ambulance officer who took her to hospital and claiming that her your [sic] name must have popped up on your phone because your phone and iPad are linked.
  6. I would also refer you to the definition of 'personal benefit' as provided within the Macquarie Concise Dictionary[9] – Revised Third Edition which defines the phrase as:

Personal as: relating to, directed to, or aimed at, a particular person.

Benefit as: 2. Anything that is for the good of a person or thing; 6. to gain advantage

  1. The evidence provided by [the patient] demonstrates an exchange of messages between Saturday 2 March 2019 and Thursday 14 March 2019[10], some of which are of a sexual nature.
  2. I refer you to the following extracts from your messages (CR) and the Patient's responses (PT), some of which are of a sexual nature or where you are alleged to have received a 'personal benefit'...
  1. [12]
    Referenced within the particulars and attached to the fresh show cause notice, were copies of a series of Facebook Messenger and text messages between Mr Reis and the patient for the period, 2 March 2019 until 14 March 2019. For background purposes, several of the exchanges between Mr Reis (CR) and the patient (PT), are set out below:

Extract of messages exchanged between Mr Reis and the patient[11]

CR "Hi sorry I might have the wrong person to many of you do you live in Toowoomba."

PT "Yes I do?"

PT "Sorry how do I know you"

CR "Lol I'm the ambo that took you to hospital you popped up on my messenger your name must have popped up on my work phone"

CR "Our ph and I pad are linked"

PT "Oh, yeh thanks for that. Feeling much Better."

PT "So you already have my number than too lol"

CR "No

CR "Only name"

CR "Well I hope you got all better"

…

PT "Sorry I didn't get your name the other day"

CR "I was a bit iffy about contacting you but I remember you were fun lol"

CR "Craig"

PT "Yes you made me laugh

CR "Even though I nearly landed on you lol"

PT "Well technically that wasn't your fault"

CR "Ummm yes then I could have got away with it that's funny"

PT "lol good on ya, so do you want my number"

…

CR "So tell me what are you interested in"

CR "I'm pretty up front And open minded"

PT "Interested? Hobbies"

CR "With me"

 …

PT "Well I'm single because I don't do fwb"

CR "What's that mean"

PT "Friends with benefits"

CR "Oh"

CR "Shame Pmsl"

CR "Just teasing"

PT "Your turn"

CR "Well I don't want a relationship to for me and Iv got a farm and ex still shares house it just works looks after animals when I'm not there but we don't sleep in the same bed or have sex so not looking for serious stuff really not looking but when I feel mojo with someone its great"

CR "And felt it with you love the banter"

 …

CR "Can I be bluntly honest I know if we drink we will screw each others Brains out know it would be great and that would fuck things up between us it's good chemistry"

PT "Maybe I would let you..."

CR "Lol I know you would that's what worry's me but in a good way"

CR "Immm stop it lol"

CR "You are finding my weak spot"

CR "Mental stimulation is great"

PT "Well maybe this would change your mind"

CR "Very nice"

CR "Yes that's great mental stimulation knew you had it in ya lol"

…

PT "...I can be open minded and I've got a high sex drive"

CR "Lol not about the quantity It's quality I'm very visual love watching"

PT "As in?"

PT "Hmm I'm all ears"

CR "Umm ok watching you playing till I nearly explode great oral watching the action at same time you playing."

PT "Hmm that sounds fun, I'm pretty sure I could accomplish that and more"

CR "Are you shaved smooth"

PT "I've been having lazer so I'm nude"

CR "Great me to what do you like and get turned on by"

 …

CR "Lol…"

CR "More pics?"

PT "So I will leave you tonight to wonder or not. You have my number if you decide to do or not? More pics to come xx"

 …

PT "So you just want pics not in person"

CR "Lol yeah will catch up but I like a tease"

PT "You do know I'm going to jump you"

CR "Lol yes"

CR "But can you do that without having a relationship I don't want to loose you as a mate"

PT "Just because I want a relationship eventually with someone does not mean I don't like sex. Hey up to you but honestly you could be doing me a huge favour … you know with my heart rate so low, you could help it beat a bit faster. Gees you already seen my boobs lol

CR "Pmsl well seeing you put it that way and me being a medic who better the least I could do"

  1. [13]
    While not reproduced in this decision, Mr Reis went on to describe, in graphic detail, various sexual acts he wanted to perform on the patient. On several occasions the patient acquiesced to Mr Reis' requests for personal photos. Separately, he sent the patient photos of himself and his son.
  2. [14]
    Under the heading ''Possible grounds of discipline", the fresh show cause correspondence included the following:[12]

Having carefully considered the information in respect of Allegation 3, I consider that you may have not complied with the Public Service Act 2008, in particular section 26(1)(k) which provides that:

Work performance and personal conduct principles

  1. (1)
    In recognition that public service employment involves a public trust, a public service employee's work performance and personal conduct must be directed towards-

k. Ensuring the employee's personal conduct does not reflect adversely on the reputation of the public service;

I therefore consider that there may be grounds for you to be disciplined pursuant to section 18A of Ambulance Service Act 1991 (the Act) which states in part:-

18A Grounds for discipline

(1) The chief executive may discipline a service officer if the chief executive is reasonably satisfied the officer has—

(b) been guilty of misconduct;

(5) Misconduct means—

(b) inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the ambulance service.

  1. [15]
    Attached to the show cause correspondence was a series of documents including the original patient complaint, extracts from The South Burnett Times and The Chronicle, a verdict and judgment record dated 10 September 2019 and extracts from legislation relevant to the disciplinary process. Mr Reis was provided with 14 days to respond to the fresh show cause notice.

Mr Reis' Response dated 1 October 2019

  1. [16]
    In his response, Mr Reis contended:
  1. (a)
    he did not use confidential patient information to contact the patient;
  2. (b)
    he did not contact the patient via her patient records, nor did he obtain her Facebook account or her telephone number from those records;
  3. (c)
    he suspected he and the patient may have had Facebook friends subscribed to the same public Facebook groups as the patient;
  4. (d)
    he conceded he used patient records to identify the patient;
  5. (e)
    he conceded he used confidential patient information to identify the patient;
  6. (f)
    it was plausible he may have received the "personal benefit" of the identification of the patient on 2 March;
  7. (g)
    the content of the text messages, although not in dispute, could not be sensibly read in context;
  8. (h)
    the messages were not a one-way stream of messaging initiated from Mr Reis;
  9. (i)
    while he may have received a personal benefit between 3 March and 14 March, he did not use the patient information after 2 March;
  10. (j)
    the "personal benefit' arose as a result of subsequent interactions between himself and the patient via private text and not from Mr Reis accessing patient information;
  11. (k)
    particulars 1 to 4 related more to allegations 1 and 2, rather than allegation three;
  12. (l)
    particulars 6, Attachment 5 and Particular 9 are mostly irrelevant.
  1. [17]
    Although Mr Reis appeared to concede in his response that on 2 March 2019 he may have used confidential patient information he inappropriately accessed for personal benefit, he disagreed the "personal benefit" continued until 14 March 2019. Instead, he contended the exchange of text messages and photos following 2 March 2019 were a separate event, which occurred after he had accessed the patient information.
  2. [18]
    In relation to the grounds for discipline, and in the same response, Mr Reis submitted:
  1. (a)
    the Service failed to reference any policy, document or legislative provision which dealt with an employee having derived a personal benefit;
  2. (b)
    the legislative provisions dealing with misconduct[13] were not relevant to the concept of "personal benefit";
  3. (c)
    the Service failed to provide specific allegations or particulars relating to the claim he had engaged in inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity, nor did it particularise the specific impact the alleged conduct had on the ambulance service;
  4. (d)
    the grounds for discipline did not fit squarely within allegation three.

Decision to substantiate allegation three dated 22 October 2020

  1. [19]
    In substantiating the allegation, the Service determined:
  1. (a)
    Mr Reis' submissions that he did not use confidential information to contact the patient were directly contradicted by his own submissions and other attachments provided to him during the show cause process;
  2. (b)
    allegation three did not overlap or supplement allegation two;
  3. (c)
    but for Mr Reis' access and inappropriate use of the confidential information to identify and contact the patient, his initial and subsequent contact could not have occurred, whether on Facebook Messenger or through texts to the patient's mobile;
  4. (d)
    Mr Reis enjoyed a personal benefit which extended to the exchange of messages, some of which were of a sexual nature, including exchanges where he asked the patient to send more photos and proposed sexually explicit activities he wished to engage in with the patient.
  5. (e)
    Mr Reis continued to use Facebook Messenger, the medium through which he first contacted the patient, to continue his interaction with the patient;
  6. (f)
    there existed a causal relationship between the date of the initial contact and the messaging and texting which occurred after 2 March 2019;
  7. (g)
    the messaging and texting following 2 March 2019 was not too remote in time to deny a causal relationship;
  8. (h)
    particulars 1 to 4 were relevant because they related directly to the initial element of the timeframe included in the allegation three;
  9. (i)
    particular 5 demonstrated that in contacting the patient, Mr Reis identified himself as the ambulance driver who took the patient to hospital, but then falsely advised the patient that her name popped up on his Facebook Messenger, noting his work phone and iPad were linked;
  10. (j)
    Mr Reis' claim that the text messages could not be read in context was at odds with an earlier concession, on his part, that the content of the messages was essentially not in dispute.
  1. [20]
    The decision-maker ultimately concluded Mr Reis received a personal benefit between 2 March 2019 and 14 March 2019, when he used confidential patient information he inappropriately accessed for personal benefit. In the decision-letter, the decision-maker explained the personal benefit comprised of:
  • identification of the patient;
  • initial contact with the patient on 2 March 2019, which extended to Mr Reis obtaining the patient's phone number;
  • sexually explicit exchanges and intimate pictures that Mr Reis sought during his interactions with the patient between 2 March 2019 and 14 March 2019.
  1. [21]
    The decision-maker relied on several of the exchanges set out at paragraph [13] in this decision and other far more sexually graphic messages included in the show cause materials, in support of the position that Mr Reis derived a personal benefit, after inappropriately accessed confidential patient information.
  2. [22]
    Having substantiated allegation three, the decision-maker referred to s 26(1)(k)[14] of the Public Service Act 2008 when determining whether adequate grounds existed, such that Mr Reis should be disciplined.
  3. [23]
    The decision-maker formed the view Mr Reis' conduct "reflected seriously and adversely on the ambulance service", particularly having regard to the patient, and the readers of several local papers which had publicly reported Mr Reis' actions.
  4. [24]
    Thereafter, the decision-maker set out the proposed disciplinary action, not only in respect of allegation three but also for the two previously substantiated allegations, which were not contested in the earlier appeal.
  5. [25]
    Mr Reis was provided with seven days to respond to the proposed disciplinary action. He has not yet responded to the proposed penalty of termination of his employment, having subsequently filed the present appeal in late 2020.

Grounds of Appeal

Ground One – the decision-maker conflated the reasoning regarding 'grounds for discipline' with the substantiation of allegation three, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to all matters considered by the Service

  1. [26]
    Mr Reis contends the Service has included matters relating to the Crime and Corruption Commission ('the CCC') and Operation Impala[15] within its consideration of the grounds for discipline. He maintains he has not previously been provided with an opportunity to respond to any commentary or conclusions about Operation Impala, noting that although the Service previously wrote to him confirming 'no response was required', it now relies on such matters to substantiate allegation three.
  2. [27]
    The Service maintains the decision-makers reference to, and attachment of page 12 of the Executive Summary of the CCC report Operation Impala should not, in the Service's view, be controversial, noting it was a published statement outlining the primary focus of the investigation as being in line with "growing community expectations".
  3. [28]
    In any event, the Service argues that if Mr Reis was of a mind to argue that it is not a community expectation that an agency should ensure that personal information should be respected and kept private, he has been provided with an opportunity to respond to any commentary in respect of this issue at page 22 of the decision-maker's correspondence of 22 October 2020.[16]

Consideration

  1. [29]
    The Queensland Ambulance Service Disciplinary procedure provides an outline of the disciplinary provisions applicable to employees of the Service. Sub-clause 3.2 sets out the "Principles of Discipline", which provide that all disciplinary action must be:
  1. a)in accordance with the appropriate legislation and standards;
  2. b)supported by objective evidence which has taken all relevant matters into account;
  3. c)in accordance with principles of natural justice; and
  4. d)provided to the employee in writing.

 

  1. [30]
    Within the procedure, the definition of natural justice includes a reference to the hearing rule, which essentially provides that an individual is to be informed of the substance of any allegations against them and have the opportunity to present their case, prior to a decision being made.
  2. [31]
    The correspondence provided to Mr Reis substantiating allegation three essentially comprises of five broad areas. The first section of the decision-letter considers allegation three and the issues raised in Mr Reis' response to the fresh show cause notice. The second section of the correspondence advises Mr Reis of the decision in respect of allegation three and the reasons underpinning its substantiation.
  3. [32]
    Having substantiated the allegation, the third area of the decision-letter, under the heading "Grounds for discipline" contemplates the nature of Mr Reis' conduct and whether grounds had arisen upon which he could be disciplined. Here, the decision-maker notes that having "considered the information available to me in respect of Allegation Three, I consider there are grounds for you to be disciplined pursuant to section 18A of the [Ambulance Service Act 1991]".
  4. [33]
    Having concluded that grounds for discipline had arisen, the fourth section of the decision-maker's correspondence, under the heading "Determining Appropriate Penalty", sets out a series of penalties available to the decision-maker.
  5. [34]
    The fifth area of the correspondence proposes a disciplinary penalty having regard not just to allegation three, but also two other earlier allegations, which were substantiated during the initial show cause process.
  6. [35]
    In the final pages of the correspondence, Mr Reis is offered an opportunity to respond to the proposed disciplinary action(s), associated with each substantiated allegation, with the decision-maker noting:

... If you disagree with the proposed disciplinary action, you have the opportunity to provide an alternative action for each allegation and reasons why you consider that disciplinary action is more appropriate.

  1. [36]
    In the same correspondence, Mr Reis was provided with additional documentation which included s 18B of the Ambulance Service Act 1991, which details disciplinary action which may be taken against an offer of the service and the executive summary and recommendations of Operation Impala.
  2. [37]
    Although Mr Reis argues the Service relied on matters related to Operation Impala to substantiate allegation three, having considered the decision-maker's reasoning within the area of the correspondence as it specifically relates to the substantiation of allegation three, I am not persuaded this occurred.
  3. [38]
    Instead, the reference to Operation Impala within the correspondence provided to Mr Reis falls under the heading "Grounds for discipline" where the decision-maker sets out the basis upon which it has been determined that some form of disciplinary action should be taken, noting:[17]

... The primary focus of Operation Impala was the unauthorised access to and disclosure of confidential information of a personal nature. The emphasis was said to be:

' … in line with growing community expectations that people's personal information should be respected and kept private by any agency authorised to collect, store and use it.'

Your conduct was contrary to any reasonable community expectation of a QAS employee and is certainly contrary to that expected of a registered paramedic who had a duty of care to your patient in a relationship based on trust.

  1. [39]
     In addition to being provided with information relevant to Operation Impala, Mr Reis was invited at the conclusion of the decision-letter to respond to the proposed disciplinary action and provide the Service with any reasons in support of alternative disciplinary action.
  2. [40]
    Having regard to these factors and the context in which Operation Impala was raised within the decision-letter, I am not persuaded the decision-maker has failed to comply with the obligations set out within the relevant disciplinary procedure in the manner characterised by Mr Reis in his submissions. Nor am I able to conclude the decision-maker has conflated the reasoning in respect of grounds for discipline with the substantiation of allegation three, in turn denying Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to all matters considered.
  3. [41]
    As part of the disciplinary process, Mr Reis has also been provided with an opportunity to view information about Operation Impala and has been invited to respond to the material in so far as it has informed the decision-maker's reasoning in respect of the disciplinary penalty and the reasons for it.
  4. [42]
    In those circumstances I do not consider Mr Reis has established that the decision was not fair and reasonable in relation to this ground.

Ground Two – the decision-maker conflated the reasoning regarding the determination of the proposed penalty with the substantiation of allegation three, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to all matters considered by the Service

  1. [43]
    Mr Reis argues the Service has considered findings associated with an alleged breach of the relevant standards of conduct for registered health professionals, as part of its reasoning for grounds for discipline and the disciplinary finding that allegation three is substantiated, in turn denying him an opportunity to respond to such issues.
  2. [44]
    The Service maintains that as a registered health professional with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra'), Mr Reis is required to be registered and be aware of, and comply with, the standards, guidelines, and policies of the National Board.[18]
  3. [45]
    On the basis of what is expected of registered health practitioners by Ahpra and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the Service maintains it did not consider it necessary to particularise that which registered health practitioners are required to comply with and be aware of.
  4. [46]
    It is also argued that in the event the Commission determines that a failure to particularise the relevant code is held to represent a process failing, that given the overall evidence made available to Mr Reis and relied on by the decision-maker, any such omission should be considered as a minor blemish to the overall process and not one which warrants the impeachment of the disciplinary findings.

Consideration

  1. [47]
    Similar to the references to Operation Impala considered above in ground one of this appeal, the focus by the Service on any alleged breach of relevant standards of conduct under the interim Code of Conduct for registered health professionals, was considered by the decision-maker when determining whether grounds for discipline had arisen.
  2. [48]
    I am unable to identify any overlap between the substantiation of allegation three in the earlier part of the decision-letter and the subsequent determination of the proposed penalty, in the manner characterised by Mr Reis in ground two of this appeal.
  3. [49]
    As identified earlier in this decision,[19] the definition of natural justice within the Queensland Ambulance Disciplinary procedure includes a reference to the hearing rule, which provides that an individual is to be informed of the substance of any allegations against them and have the opportunity to present their case, prior to a decision being made.
  4. [50]
    The materials provided to the Commission support a conclusion the Service set out the substance of the allegations, and Mr Reis was afforded the opportunity to present his case. Having considered the response from Mr Reis, it is clear from the materials that the Service then went on to substantiate allegation three but not before setting out the reasoning associated with the decision.
  5. [51]
    Having substantiated the decision and concluded that grounds for discipline had arisen, the Service noted:

From the exchanges you solicited, I have determined this occurred for your own personal benefit, breaking the trust relationship between paramedic and patient, in breach of standards of conduct under the interim Code of Conduct for registered health professionals, the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service and your duties to QAS as an employee ...

  1. [52]
    Here, the issue of any alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for health practitioners was raised in the context of the Service considering whether grounds for discipline had arisen, having previously substantiated allegation three.
  2. [53]
    On balance, although I consider the reference to a breach of the relevant professional standards of conduct would have been better placed in the original show cause notice, after reviewing the manner and context in which a breach of the relevant standard(s) of conduct was raised by the Service, that is, in the area of the decision-letter where grounds for discipline are contemplated, I am not persuaded the inclusion of the comments support the conclusions pressed by Mr Reis under appeal ground two.
  3. [54]
    Having determined grounds for discipline had arisen, which included concerns around Mr Reis' breach of the relevant standards of conduct, the decision-letter went on to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond to the proposed disciplinary action(s). Within the decision-letter, he was also invited to provide reasons in support of his response, therefore giving him with an opportunity to raise concerns and question the conclusions arrived at by the Service on those issues.

Ground Three – the Service relied on matters falling outside of the particulars provided in support of allegation three

  1. [55]
    Mr Reis contends the Service has relied upon other matters falling outside of the particulars provided in support of allegation three, when considering disciplinary action, namely references within the decision-letter to Operation Impala, the interim Code of Conduct for registered health professionals and a file note of Senior Operations Supervisor (SOS) Brad Setch along with a related contention that the patient Mr Reis interacted with became stressed at just seeing an ambulance.
  2. [56]
    The Service argues allegation three was determined having regard to the evidence, as opposed to inferences unreasonably drawn, noting:
  • the decision-maker's reference to, and attachment of, page 12 of the Executive Summary of the CCC report Operation Impala is not controversial. It is a published statement outlining the primary focus of the investigation that the CCC viewed as being in line with growing community expectations;
  • Mr Reis was provided with copies of SOS Setch's file notes in correspondence dated 18 September 2020;
  • on the basis of what is expected of registered health practitioners by Ahpra and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and the requirement to be aware of and comply with the standards, the Service did not consider it necessary to particularise that which registered health practitioners are required to be aware of and comply with;
  • at worst, the reference to the relevant standards is a minor blemish which should not interfere with the disciplinary finding;
  • a reasonable inference to be drawn from an inquiry contained in Mr Reis' response to the show cause notice concerning the patient's statement to SOS Setch, was that he and his representatives were well aware of the patient's statements as set out in SOS Setch's file note, particularly when one has regard to its inclusion in correspondence to Mr Reis dated 18 September 2020.[20]

Consideration

  1. [57]
    As identified earlier in this decision,[21] the definition of natural justice within the Queensland Ambulance Disciplinary procedure includes a reference to the hearing rule, which provides that an individual is to be informed of the substance of any allegations against them and have the opportunity to present their case, prior to a decision being made.
  2. [58]
    The materials provided to the Commission support a conclusion the Service set out the substance of allegation three, including the particulars. Mr Reis was afforded the opportunity to present his case. After considering his response, the Service concluded allegation three was able to be substantiated.
  3. [59]
    The Service then went on to determine that grounds for discipline had arisen having regard to Mr Reis' conduct and various other factors. The reasoning set out by the decision-maker included references to Operation Impala, relevant standards of conduct and a comment about the effect of Mr Reis' conduct on the patient, namely:

The file note of SOS Setch dated 23 May 2019 demonstrates that your conduct has affected the patient more than what she had thought and [she] becomes stressed just seeing an ambulance.[22]

  1. [60]
    Having referenced SOS Setch's file note in his reply to the show cause notice, I am satisfied Mr Reis and his representatives were aware of the material. Moreover, it is clear the materials had been previously provided to Mr Reis for his consideration.
  2. [61]
    As best I understand it, Mr Reis is of the view that the observations or conclusions by the decision-maker, including comments in respect of Operation Impala or the relevant standards of conduct detailed earlier in this decision, should have been put to him before the decision-maker arrived at any conclusions about disciplinary findings and proposed penalty.
  3. [62]
    The difficulty I have with this approach is that given the decision-maker was yet to determine whether allegation three was able to be substantiated, it would have been somewhat premature on the part of the decision-maker to have, in the show cause notice, arrived at any conclusions in respect of disciplinary findings, ahead of any determinations related to the substantiation of allegation three.
  4. [63]
    Having substantiated allegation three, the Service then went on to consider the grounds for discipline and the proposed penalty, inviting Mr Reis to respond within the same decision-letter.
  5. [64]
    In those circumstances, I am unable to be persuaded that consideration by the decision-maker of the issues identified by Mr Reis in ground three of this appeal, when determining whether grounds for discipline had arisen, should result in the decision being set aside.
  6. [65]
    For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied Mr Reis has established the decision was not fair and reasonable in so far as it concerns ground three.

Ground Four – the decision-maker infected the reasoning and disciplinary findings by including and considering matters that were not framed as allegations, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond

Ground Five – the decision-maker infected the reasoning and disciplinary findings by including and considering matters that were not framed as allegations, which allegations the Service had previously informed Mr Reis were unrelated to the disciplinary process, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond

  1. [66]
    Grounds of appeal four and five are interrelated such that it is convenient to consider them together.
  2. [67]
    Mr Reis contends the Service has inappropriately relied on a criminal matter dealt with by the Toowoomba Magistrates Court when considering disciplinary action.
  3. [68]
    In support of his concerns, Mr Reis points to various comments from the Service earlier in the show cause process where it confirmed the disciplinary process was being conducted pursuant to the Ambulance Service Act 1991 which was a separate process and not connected to any criminal proceedings associated with s 408E of the Criminal Code.[23]

Consideration

  1. [69]
    In the re-issued show cause notice which revisited allegation three, under the heading "Possible grounds for discipline", the decision-maker advised Mr Reis of concerns that he may not have complied with the Public Service Act 2008, and in particular s 26(1)(k) which provides:

Work performance and personal conduct principles

  1. (1)
    In recognition that public service employment involves a public trust, a public service employee's work performance and personal conduct must be directed towards—

...

k. Ensuring the employee's personal conduct does not reflect adversely on the reputation of the public service

  1. [70]
    The correspondence drew Mr Reis' attention to newspaper articles which, among other things, reported Mr Reis has inappropriately accessed a patient's name on the Queensland Ambulance Service computer in breach of the Service's policy and other comments made by the Magistrate in relation to the seriousness of the offence.
  2. [71]
    The reference to the criminal matter Mr Reis is referring to appeared under the heading, "Grounds for discipline", in the following context:

The readers of 'The Chronicle' and 'The South Burnett Times' on 11 September 2019 (previously provided) became aware that a QAS officer with 20 years' service inappropriately accessed a patient's name from the QAS computer system, and was convicted of, what the magistrate said, was a 'very very serious' offence which caried a maximum sentence of two years jail.

The improper access and dissemination of confidential information by public sector agencies has been of such concern in Queensland that the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) launched a specific investigation. The primary focus of Operation Impala was on the unauthorised access to and disclosure of confidential information that was said to be:

' … in line with growing community expectations that people's personal information should be respected and kept private by any agency authorised to collect, store and use it.'[24]

Your conduct was contrary to any reasonable community expectation of a QAS employee and is certainly contrary to what was expected of a registered paramedic who has a duty of care to your patient in a relationship based on trust.

…

Your conduct has reflected seriously and adversely on the ambulance service, particularly with respect to the patient, and the readers of 'The Chronicle' and 'The South Burnett Times'.

  1. [72]
    Having regard to the materials before the Commission on this issue, I am satisfied the Service did not rely on the criminal matter to inform its position in relation to the substantiation of allegation three.
  2. [73]
    The criminal proceedings and the disciplinary show cause proceedings were two different processes. On the materials before the Commission, I am not persuaded they overlapped in the manner characterised by Mr Reis.
  3. [74]
    Having regard to the context in which the criminal matters were raised, it is clear the decision-maker considered the comments reported in the newspaper, along with several other factors, were supportive of a conclusion that Mr Reis had engaged in conduct which reflected adversely on the Service.
  4. [75]
    The extent to which the criminal matter had any bearing on the disciplinary process was limited purely to considerations by the Service about published comments related to Mr Reis conduct.
  5. [76]
    Moreover, details of the newspaper reports were provided to Mr Reis for his consideration during the show cause process in circumstances where the Service had highlighted possible grounds for discipline in connection with s 26(1)(k) of the Public Service Act 2008.
  6. [77]
    Given this, I consider it was open to the decision-maker to include reference to the criminal matter and the newspaper articles in its consideration of whether Mr Reis' conduct had reflected adversely on the Service. I am therefore unable to be persuaded Mr Reis has established that the decision was not fair or reasonable in relation to these grounds.

Ground Six – the Service improperly exceeded the boundaries of the fresh show cause process in relation to allegation three

  1. [78]
    Mr Reis' appeal notice provides limited details as to how he considers the Service has improperly exceeded the boundaries of the fresh show cause notice in relation to allegation three.
  2. [79]
    In subsequent submissions under the heading "Allegation three", Mr Reis highlights references within the decision-letter to Operation Impala, the interim Code of Conduct for registered health professionals and a particular file note of SOS Stretch along with a related contention that the patient Mr Reis interacted with became stressed at just seeing an ambulance, as being examples of matters falling outside of the particulars related to allegation three.
  3. [80]
    Appeal ground six appears to be largely the same as appeal ground three.
  4. [81]
    For the reasons set out at [61] to [66] above in respect of appeal ground three, I am unable to be persuaded the decision was not fair and reasonable in so far as it concerns ground six.

Ground Seven – the Service re-opened the disciplinary process in relation to allegation one, retrospectively considering matters which fall outside the particulars provided in support of that allegation, and subsequently conflated the consideration of the proposed disciplinary action with such matters, some of which were previously stated to be unrelated

  1. [82]
    Mr Reis contends the fresh show cause process has been misused by the Service to the extent that allegation one has been re-opened in relation to considerations around discipline, which he maintains have been conflated with new matters about which he has not been provided with an opportunity to respond, and which he had earlier been advised were not related to the process.
  2. [83]
    By way of example, Mr Reis refers to the inclusion within the decision-letter of a published comment by the Magistrate about the seriousness of his offence.
  3. [84]
    On this issue, Mr Reis’ concern is that he has been denied the opportunity to respond to the relevance the comment, or any decision about proposed disciplinary action that has arisen because of the decision-maker’s consideration of the reported comments.
  4. [85]
    In subsequent submissions, Mr Reis points to the inclusion by the decision-maker of a proposal to dismiss him from his employment, noting the previous proposal was limited to a reprimand and a final warning (in so far as it related to allegation one only). He considers the Service, in considering the proposed disciplinary action for allegation one, has:[25]

... imported considerations, apparently as they related to Allegations Two and Three, such as [Mr Reis] having not only accessed the patient information (Allegation One) but also having contacted the patient (Allegation Two) and having pursued the patient on a personal basis (Allegation Three).

  1. [86]
    Mr Reis further submits that in circumstances where he did not appeal the disciplinary findings associated with allegations one or two, the proposed disciplinary action associated with the earlier substantiated allegations should remain unaffected by the fresh show cause process in relation to allegation three.
  2. [87]
    The Service has devoted a considerable portion of its submissions responding to Mr Reis’ contentions in appeal ground seven, noting:
  • the direction to commence a fresh show cause process was remitted to a new decision-maker in accordance with the relevant directions;
  • to maintain the integrity of a fresh decision, the decision-maker was provided with the appeal outcome only in so far as it related to the relevant direction and the materials related to allegation three;
  • the new decision-maker was not provided with correspondence or materials associated with the earlier decision or recommendations around any proposed disciplinary penalty, with the intention they address the matter anew;
  • although Mr Reis previously appealed an earlier recommendation by the Service that his employment be terminated, the relevant member of the Commission determined the recommendation as to proposed discipline had no effect in circumstances where the Commission determined a ‘recommendation’ is not a decision that may be appealed pursuant to the Public Service Act 2008.
  1. [88]
    The Service contends that once the fresh decision-maker made a disciplinary finding in relation to allegation three, she was made aware of the substantiated allegations one and two, along with the decision of the Commission arising from Mr Reis’ original appeal where it was determined:

… it was unnecessary for Mr Reis to be asked to show cause on a proposed penalty which was not the subject of a decision by a decision-maker with the requisite delegated authority, but rather, a recommendation only.[26]

  1. [89]
    It further contends that having substantiated the allegation it was open to the decision-maker to ask Mr Reis to show cause why proposed disciplinary action should not be imposed on the undisturbed disciplinary findings made in relation to allegations one and two.
  2. [90]
    It is submitted the new decision-maker was not aware of the position taken by the earlier decision-maker, and in any case, even if she had been made aware of the correspondence, as the fresh decision-maker with the requisite delegated authority DC Taylor-Dutton would not have been bound to follow the same or similar paths of reasoning.
  3. [91]
    The Service also denies Mr Reis’ contention it has relied on particulars falling outside of, and contrary to the particulars previously provided in support of allegation one, noting that he has failed to identify any such particulars.

Consideration

  1. [92]
    In his earlier appeal before the Commission filed on 31 March 2020, Mr Reis appealed only the substantiation of allegation three. He did not dispute the decision to substantiate allegations one and two.
  2. [93]
    In the same appeal, he also sought to appeal recommendations made by the decision-maker that the findings be referred to the relevant delegated authority to consider imposing the disciplinary action of terminating his employment.
  3. [94]
    The Commissioner determining the appeal concluded it was unnecessary for Mr Reis to be asked to show cause on a proposed penalty which was not the subject of a decision by a decision-maker with the requisite delegated authority, but rather, a recommendation only.
  4. [95]
    The Service was subsequently directed by the Commissioner to undertake a fresh show cause process in respect of allegation three and appoint a new decision-maker to oversee the process.
  5. [96]
    A fresh show cause process was instigated, which included Mr Reis being provided with the substance of allegation three and the relevant particulars. After receiving his response, the decision-maker concluded allegation three was able to be substantiated.
  6. [97]
    Section 18A of the Ambulance Service Act 1991 sets out the circumstances in which a chief executive officer may discipline an officer. In disciplining a service officer, s 18B of the Ambulance Service Act 1991 provides that a chief executive may take action, or order the action be taken, which he or she considers reasonable in the circumstances. Examples of disciplinary action range from termination of employment to a reprimand.
  7. [98]
    Having substantiated allegation three, the fresh decision-maker was provided with the decision of the previous decision-maker in so far as it substantiated allegations one and two, but not the earlier recommendation in respect of any proposed discipline.
  8. [99]
    I consider this is an entirely reasonable approach, having regard to the conclusions by the Commission in the earlier appeal that "… the recommendation made by Mr Clarke regarding the proposed disciplinary action will be of no effect".[27]
  9. [100]
    The new decision-maker proceeded to consider and propose disciplinary action in respect of all three substantiated allegations.
  10. [101]
    As best I can tell, Mr Reis complains that he did not appeal allegation one and two in his first appeal, having regard to the disciplinary recommendations contained in the original decision letter, instead focussing his attention on allegation three.
  11. [102]
    The difficulty I have with this submission is that I must determine the appeal by reviewing the decision before me. I have very limited, if any, materials before me in relation to allegations one and two, the reasons why Mr Reis chose not to appeal the substantiation of those allegations.
  12. [103]
    The appeal before me is not by way of rehearing but instead, involves a review of the decision arrived at in respect of allegation three and the decision-making processes associated with it.[28] The decision-maker has not yet made a decision about any proposed disciplinary penalty in relation to allegations one, two and three.
  13. [104]
    I accept the submissions of the Service that the fresh decision-maker was not bound to follow the same approach taken by the earlier decision-maker, in so far as it related to conclusions associated with proposed disciplinary action.
  14. [105]
    Having regard to Mr Reis’ submissions in support of appeal ground seven and the materials before the Commission, I am also unable to identify a circumstance where the Service has retrospectively considered matters which fall outside the particulars related to allegation one, as claimed as part of appeal ground seven.
  15. [106]
    Even if I were to be wrong on this point, I note that a decision in relation to penalty has not yet been reached, with Mr Reis having been invited to respond to the proposed disciplinary action and to provide reasons in support, if he is so inclined, of an alternative disciplinary penalty and the basis for any such proposal. 
  16. [107]
    For these reasons, I am not persuaded Mr Reis has established the decision was not fair and reasonable with respect to this ground.

Ground Eight – the Service introduced a new contention in respect of the 'grounds for discipline' which had not previously been raised and fell outside the particulars, in turn failing to provide Mr Reis with an opportunity to respond

  1. [108]
    Mr Reis contends the decision-maker has taken into consideration a file note of SOS Setch dated 23 May 2019 when determining whether grounds for discipline have arisen.
  2. [109]
    This ground of appeal has been previously addressed under appeal ground three.
  3. [110]
    For the reasons set out at [61] to [66] above, I am not satisfied Mr Reis has established the decision was not fair and reasonable in so far as it concerns ground eight.

Ground Nine – the Service denied Mr Reis natural justice and acted in an unreasonable and unfair manner

  1. [111]
    Mr Reis claims he was denied natural justice and the Service acted in an unreasonable and unfair manner.
  2. [112]
    This is the final appeal ground listed in Mr Reis’ appeal notice.   
  3. [113]
    Having regard to the entirety of Mr Reis’ submissions in so far as they may relate to this ground of appeal, I do not feel an actual persuasion that the Service has denied Mr Reis natural justice or acted in an unreasonable and unfair manner in the substantiation of allegation three and the determination that grounds to discipline Mr Reis had arisen.
  4. [114]
    By way of illustration, the Public Service Commission's Chief Executive Guideline 01/17: Discipline defines "natural justice" as follows:

Natural justice (also known as 'procedural fairness') – is a common law requirement with two parts: (a) the hearing rule and (b) the rule against bias. Both are integral to a disciplinary process. When a person's rights or interests may be adversely affected by a decision they should be informed about the allegations (and evidence) against them and provided with an opportunity to be heard (the hearing rule). The decision maker should be unbiased in that they don't have an actual, possible or perceived conflict of interest in the matter and/or its outcome (the rule against bias).[29]

  1. [115]
    The Queensland Ambulance Service Disciplinary procedure provides an outline of the disciplinary provisions applicable to employees of the Service including sub-clause 3.2 which sets out the "Principles of Discipline".[30]
  2. [116]
    In Kioa v West, it was said that the principles of natural justice have a flexible, "chameleon-like" quality, the content of which depends on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the inquiry, the subject-matter, and the rules under which the decision-maker is acting.[31]
  3. [117]
    Mason J wrote:

In this respect the expression 'procedural fairness' more aptly conveys the notion of a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures which are appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of the particular case. The statutory power must be exercised fairly, i.e., in accordance with procedures that are fair to the individual ...[32]

  1. [118]
    Having considered the Queensland Ambulance Service Disciplinary procedure, I am satisfied the processes adopted by the Service, after being directed to undertake a fresh show cause process in respect of allegation three, in the main, were fair.
  2. [119]
    Mr Reis was provided ample opportunity to be heard. He was also provided with the material on which the decision-maker based the decision to substantiate allegation three, and a fresh decision-maker who was unbiased and, as best I can tell, free from conflicts of interest. Although he is yet to do so, Mr Reis has also been invited to respond to the proposed disciplinary penalty and the reasons in support of the action.
  3. [120]
    For these reasons, I do not consider this ground of appeal has been established.

Disposition

  1. [121]
    Mr Reis’ submissions deal extensively with his concerns about factors the Service has unfairly taken into consideration when determining whether grounds for discipline have arisen and the way those considerations have influenced the decision to substantiate allegation three.
  2. [122]
    For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied the decision was fair and reasonable in so far as it relates to the substantiation of allegation three and any conclusions reached by the Service with respect to grounds for discipline.
  3. [123]
    I note that I am prevented from forming any conclusions in respect of the proposed disciplinary action in circumstances where a decision is yet to be made.
  4. [124]
    For the reasons given above in so far as they relate to appeal grounds one to nine, I have determined that the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.
  5. [125]
    I confirm the decision appealed against and order accordingly.

Order

  1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Notice of Appeal filed 29 October 2020.

[2] Notice of Appeal filed 31 March 2020.

[3] Attachment 1 – Slightly redacted complaint from patient and associated File Notes.

[4] Attachment 3 – Screenshot where your [sic] identity [sic] as working for QAS.

[5] Attachment 4 – Text messages provided by the complainant; phone numbers redacted.

[6] Attachment 5 – Verdict and Judgment record dated 10 September 2019.

[7] Attachment 2 – Redacted eARF 501233473.

[8] Attachment 11 – CR Roster Projection March 2019.

[9] Attachment 6 – Extracts from Macquarie Concise Dictionary.

[10] Attachment 4 – Text messages provided by the complainant, phone numbers redacted.

[11] Errors in original.

[12] Footnotes omitted.

[13] Ambulance Service Act 1991 s 18A; Public Service Act 2008 s 26(i)(k).

[14] See at [15] above.

[15] See Crime and Corruption Commission, Operation Impala: Report on misuse of confidential information in the Queensland public sector (February 2020).

[16] Attachment One – Notice of Appeal PSA/2020/277.

[17] Footnote omitted.

[18] Annexure 5 – Code of Conduct, Paramedicine Board of Australia, June 2018, p 6.

[19] See at [31] above.

[20] Annexure 7, Attachment 1 – Letter to Appellant dated 18 September 2020.

[21] See at [31] above.

[22] Attachment 1 – Slightly redacted complaint from patient and associated File Notes (previously provided).

[23] Schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Act 1899.

[24] See Crime and Corruption Commission, Operation Impala: Report on misuse of confidential information in the Queensland public sector (February 2020) 12.

[25] Appellant's submissions dated 12 November 2020 at [21].

[26] Annexure 4 of the Respondent's submissions dated 27 November 2020: Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Hartigan IC, 28 August 2020) [77].

[27] Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Hartigan IC, 28 August 2020) [70].

[28] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) 5.

[29] my emphasis.

[30] Set out at [30] above.

[31] (1985) 159 CLR 550, 584-585 (Mason J), 612 (Brennan J).

[32] Ibid 585.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Reis v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 95

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    23 Mar 2021

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 319
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 319
Kioa v West (1985) 159 C.L.R 550
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 159 C.L.R 550
Cite 2 - (1985) 159 C.L.R 550
Cite 3 - (1985) 159 C.L.R 550

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

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.