Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service - [2022] QIRC 471

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

Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service[2022] QIRC 471

Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service[2022] QIRC 471

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service [2022] QIRC 471

PARTIES:

Turner, Peter

(Appellant)

v

Queensland Ambulance Service

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/374

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Disciplinary Decision

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2022

MEMBER:

Knight IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – DUTIES AND OFFENCES IN RELATION TO OFFICE – appeal against a decision pursuant to s 197 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) – where two allegations substantiated – where disciplinary action imposed reducing appellant's pay code by two increments – whether penalty fair and reasonable – penalty confirmed

LEGISLATION AND

INSTRUMENTS:

Ambulance Service Act 1991 (Qld) ss 18A, 18B

Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service cl 3.1

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 197

Queensland Ambulance Service Certified Agreement 2017 sch 4

Queensland Ambulance Service Discipline Human Resources Procedure cl 3.4.1

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) s 300

CASES:

Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170

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

Manttan v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 238

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Nesbit v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2021] ICQ 005

Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397

Rizkallah and Australian Postal Corporation [1991] AATA 611

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Mr Peter Turner is employed by the State of Queensland as an Advanced Care Paramedic through Queensland Ambulance Service ('QAS'). Mr Turner has over 16 years' service with QAS.
  2. [2]
    In a decision letter dated 21 February 2022, A/Assistant Commissioner Matthew Green informed Mr Turner that, following a show cause process, he had decided to impose the following disciplinary action on Mr Turner:
  1. (a)
    a forfeiture of two increments from Pay code AF31/3 ($94,521 per annum) to AF31/1 ($90,686 per annum);
  2. (b)
    that Mr Turner remain on Pay code AF31/1 for six months after which, subject to his satisfactory performance, he may progress to remuneration level AF31/2 ($92,617 per annum); and
  3. (c)
    that Mr Turner remain on Pay code AF31/2 for six months after which, subject to his satisfactory performance, he may progress to remuneration level AF31/3;

('the penalty').

  1. [3]
    Mr Turner was also required to complete Code of Conduct and Ethical Decision Making training and meet with his supervisor to discuss his understanding of information privacy and the training.
  2. [4]
    The penalty was intended to take effect from 15 March 2022. However, cl 3.4.1(b) of the QAS Discipline Human Resources Procedure provides that where an appeal had been made against a disciplinary penalty (other than termination of employment) it cannot take effect until the appeal has been determined.
  3. [5]
    By appeal notice filed 14 March 2022, Mr Turner appeals the penalty under ch 7 pt 1 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). [1] Such an appeal proceeds under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). [2] It is not by way of rehearing, but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process therein. Its stated purpose is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.[3]
  4. [6]
    In my view, the penalty was fair and reasonable.
  5. [7]
    My reasons follow.

Background

  1. [8]
    On 29 November 2021, Mr Turner was invited to show cause why a disciplinary finding should not be made against him in relation to the following allegations:

Allegation One

On 12 May 2021, you inappropriately captured an image containing confidential information on your personal mobile phone and published this on social media.

Allegation Two

On May 12 2021 [sic], you used a mobile phone whilst operating a QAS vehicle in 'D' [drive] mode.

  1. [9]
    In his response dated 13 December 2021, Mr Turner admitted to both allegations.
  2. [10]
    In correspondence dated 4 January 2022, Mr Turner was advised that it had been found that he had failed to comply with standard 3.1(e) of the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service ('Code of Conduct') in respect of Allegation One, and standard 3.1(c) in respect of Allegation Two.
  3. [11]
    Consequently, the decision-maker determined the allegations were substantiated and there were grounds to discipline Mr Turner under s 18A(1)(g)(ii) of the Ambulance Service Act 1991 (Qld) ('the ASA').

Show Cause Process

  1. [12]
    Within the 4 January 2022 correspondence, the decision-maker advised he was giving consideration to appropriate disciplinary action as follows:

Proposed disciplinary action

In relation to the imposition of a disciplinary action in relation to Allegation [One and Two], I am currently giving serious consideration to the disciplinary action of:

  1.  Forfeiture of two increments from Pay code AF31/3 ($94,521 per annum) to AF31/1 ($90,686 per annum); and
  1.  That you remain on Pay code AF31/1 ($90,686 per annum) for 6 months after which, subject to your satisfactory performance, you may progress to remuneration level AF31/2 ($92,617 per annum); and
  1.  That you remain on Pay code AF31/2 ($92,617 per annum) for 6 months after which, subject to your satisfactory performance, you may progress to remuneration level AF31/3 ($94,521 per annum).

Further to this, I am giving serious consideration to the administrative action of training where you would be required to complete the Information Privacy Code of Conduct and Public Sector Ethics training via the QASCLO system and meet with your supervisor to discuss your knowledge and understanding of these requirements.

In accordance with the principles of natural justice, no final determination of the disciplinary action to be imposed has been made, or will be made, until you have had the opportunity to respond.

  1. [13]
    Mr Turner was invited to respond to the proposed penalty, which he did on 24 January 2022.

Mr Turner's Response

  1. [14]
    Within his response Mr Turner:
  1. (a)
    reiterated that he accepted disciplinary findings may be made in relation to his conduct and that he did not contest the findings;
  1. (b)
    stated that he did not oppose the imposition of further training or a requirement to meet with his supervisor to discuss QAS expectations and his information privacy obligations;
  2. (c)
    submitted the proposed financial penalty was disproportionate;
  3. (d)
    stated he deeply regretted his actions and had engaged in serious introspection and reflection on his conduct;
  4. (e)
    maintained he had recently completed training and a refresher on information privacy, and spent much time discussing his actions and the QAS expectations with his officer in command ('OIC');
  5. (f)
    acknowledged the training and discussions with his OIC had further assisted him to reflect on his actions;
  6. (g)
    noted he was currently undergoing a Performance Improvement Plan to better his understanding of information privacy and the Code of Conduct, and this had also reinforced his training;
  7. (h)
    acknowledged the seriousness of information privacy, safety and his conduct in his role as a paramedic stating his conduct had been 'thoughtless';
  8. (i)
    submitted a financial penalty was not necessary to ensure he handles patient information sensitively and drives professionally and safely in future; and
  9. (j)
    proposed the alternative penalty of a reprimand in lieu of the financial penalty.
  1. [15]
    Mr Turner concluded his response by noting he was proud of his 16 years of service with QAS. Moreover, that he had not been subject to any previous disciplinary action.

The Decision

  1. [16]
    The decision-letter relevantly provides:

My decision in relation to the disciplinary action

I have considered all the information available to me in determining the appropriate action to take in this matter, including your response, however all information may not be specifically mentioned in my decision.

Your actions relating to this matter raised serious concerns. As a QAS employee you occupy a unique position of trust and responsibility within the community which you failed to achieve in this instance. You chose to operate a vehicle in an unsafe manner, whilst entertaining your own personal agendas rather than the interests of the QAS and your patient. These actions simply did not project the desired image of a QAS employee with over 16 years' experience and considered a senior member of the service.

Therefore, in accordance with section 18B of the Ambulance Service Act, I have decided to impose the disciplinary action of:

  1.  A forfeiture of two increment from Pay code AF31/3 ($94,521 per annum) to AF31/1 ($90,686 per annum);
  1.  That you remain on Pay code AF31/1 ($90,686 per annum) for 6 months after which, subject to your satisfactory performance, you may progress to remuneration level AF31/2 ($92,617 per annum); and
  1.  That you remain on Pay code AF31/2 ($92,617 per annum) for 6 months after which, subject to your satisfactory performance, you may progress to remuneration level AF31/3($94,521 per annum).

I understand that you have recently completed A3QASIPT19 – QAS Information Privacy Training and A3QASIPTR21 – QAS Information Privacy Training – Refresher on 2 and 5 January 2022 respectively. Due to this I will not request you to complete the Privacy training again, however you are required to complete Code of Conduct and Ethical Decision Making training via the Learning Management System (LMS) and meet with your supervisor to discuss your knowledge and understanding of these requirements.

I believe this action is reasonable and appropriate having considered all the evidence and your response.

Relevant Principles

  1. [17]
    The ASA relevantly provides:

18A Grounds for discipline

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

…

  1. (g)
     contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act or an obligation imposed on the person under—

…

  1. (ii)
     a code of conduct—
  1. (a)
     approved under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994; or

…

18B Disciplinary action that may be taken against a service officer generally

  1. (1)
     In disciplining a service officer, the chief executive may take the action, or order the action be taken, (disciplinary action) that the chief executive considers reasonable in the circumstances.

Examples of disciplinary action—

  • termination of employment
  • reduction of classification level and a consequential change of duties
  • transfer or redeployment to other ambulance service employment
  • forfeiture or deferment of a remuneration increment or increase
  • reduction of remuneration level
  • imposition of a monetary penalty
  • if a penalty is imposed, a direction that the amount of the penalty be deducted from the officer’s periodic remuneration payments
  • a reprimand

…

  1. (3)
     A monetary penalty can not be more than the total of 2 of the officer’s periodic remuneration payments.

…

  1. (5)
     An order under subsection (1) is binding on anyone affected by it.

Note—

See the following provisions in relation to appeals against a decision of the chief executive to take disciplinary action against a person—

  1. (a)
     the Public Service Act 2008, sections 23 and 194;
  1. (b)
     the Public Service Regulation 2008, sections 5 and 7 and schedule 1, item 4.
  1. [18]
    The Code of Conduct relevantly provides:

3.1 Commit to our roles in public service

Our role is to undertake our duties, and to give effect to the policies of the elected government, regardless of its political complexion.

We will:

…

c. comply with the laws of State, Australian and local governments

…

e. adhere to the policies, organisational values and organisation documents of our employing agency.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [19]
    Mr Turner appeals on the following grounds:
  1. (a)
    the decision-maker failed to take into account mitigating factors;
  2. (b)
    the decision-maker improperly considered Mr Turner's 16 years of service to be an aggravating factor;
  3. (c)
    the imposition of a pay reduction is needlessly punitive in circumstances where Mr Turner has already demonstrated contrition and insight into his action; and
  4. (d)
    a reduction in pay of $3,835 is disproportionate to the gravity of the conduct.
  1. [20]
    In approaching this appeal, I have considered the submissions made by each party in respect of Mr Turner's grounds of appeal and then turned my mind to whether, all factors considered in the circumstances, the penalty is fair and reasonable.

Did the decision-maker fail to consider mitigating factors?

  1. [21]
    Mr Turner contends the decision-maker failed to consider mitigating factors including his 16 years' service with no formal discipline record and that he did not consciously breach his confidentiality obligations.[4] Further, he maintains  that, on becoming aware of what he had done, he took responsibility for his actions, demonstrated contrition, showed insight into his behaviour and took remedial steps by completing training.[5] Relevantly, Mr Turner completed A3QASIPT19 – QAS Information Privacy Training and A3QASIPTR21 – QAS Information Privacy Training – Refresher.[6]
  2. [22]
    QAS submits a breach of the Code of Conduct is not predicated on intent.[7] Further, while it acknowledges Mr Turner's remorse and steps to take responsibility for his actions, it submits that it is important QAS address the misuse of confidential patient information in a manner reflective of the seriousness of the conduct.[8]

Consideration

  1. [23]
    Mr Turner argues the decision-maker failed to consider mitigating factors including:
  1. (a)
    Mr Turner's 16 years' service with no formal discipline record;
  1. (b)
    the inadvertence of Mr Turner's conduct;
  2. (c)
    Mr Turner's demonstrated contrition and willingness to take responsibility for his actions; and
  3. (d)
    remedial steps taken by Mr Turner, namely, undertaking training in information privacy.
  1. [24]
    I accept that such factors might be relevant when considering an appropriate penalty. However, I am not persuaded the decision-maker has failed to consider relevant factors in reaching his decision.
  2. [25]
    Within the decision letter, the decision-maker observes that Mr Turner's actions 'simply did not project the desired image of a QAS employee with over 16 years experience and considered a senior member of the service.' Although the decision-maker did not explicitly consider Mr Turner's discipline record, it is clear the decision-maker was aware of Mr Turner's service history and took this into account when determining the appropriate penalty.
  3. [26]
    Similarly, the decision-letter reflects Mr Turner did not dispute the allegations or disciplinary findings made and further acknowledges Mr Turner's steps in undertaking information privacy training, consequently not requiring him to re‑complete those modules.
  4. [27]
    Finally, I am not persuaded by Mr Turner's submission that the decision-maker failed to consider that his conduct was inadvertent in circumstances where the decision-letter reflects Mr Turner's submissions that he 'did not intend to breach QAS guidelines' and he 'deeply regret[s] [his] actions'.
  5. [28]
    Having had the benefit of reviewing the first show cause notice which sets out in detail the particulars relevant to the allegations, I accept Mr Turner's conduct was inadvertent at least in respect of Allegation One. Put simply, this is not a case where it appears Mr Turner has deliberately attempted to improperly access or share confidential patient information. In this respect, I have some sympathy for Mr Turner in respect of the circumstances giving rise to Allegation One.
  6. [29]
    I am less sympathetic in relation to Allegation Two.
  7. [30]
    However, as QAS correctly pointed out, a breach of the Code of Conduct is not predicated on intent. In any event, I am not persuaded this factor had a meaningful bearing on the decision-maker's consideration of the overall penalty.
  8. [31]
    For all these reasons, I am not persuaded the decision-maker failed to consider mitigating factors.
  9. [32]
    I am satisfied the decision-maker was aware of the mitigating factors raised by Mr Turner and gave them sufficient consideration. It may be that the decision-maker did not afford those factors the same weight Mr Turner believes he ought to have done; however, I consider that to be a separate issue which I will return to below.

Was Mr Turner's 16 years' service improperly considered as an aggravating factor?

  1. [33]
    Mr Turner contends his 16 years' unblemished service ought to have been considered a mitigating factor but was instead taken into account as an aggravation.[9] He submits his service record has been unfairly and unreasonably applied in a way that is not consistent with action that would be considered reasonable by a lay observer.[10] Consequently, he argues his service record has been used as a 'sword' and not 'shield' which is prejudicial and counter-intuitive in the prevailing circumstances.[11]
  2. [34]
    QAS did not directly address this ground of appeal. However, it did submit that it is not surprising a person such as Mr Turner has 16 years of previous good character in circumstances where the profession is often cited as one of the most trusted of professions.[12]

Consideration

  1. [35]
    It can be assumed that during his 16 years' service Mr Turner has undertaken sufficient training in information privacy and the Code of Conduct. Certainly, this was not disputed by Mr Turner either in his submissions to the Commission or in his response to the show cause notice. I do not consider it to be unreasonable to expect that a person with the experience of Mr Turner would reflect the standards and conduct of a QAS officer.
  2. [36]
    Consequently, I do not accept this ground of appeal.

Is the imposition of a pay reduction needlessly punitive?

  1. [37]
    In circumstances where he has already demonstrated remorse and insight, and taken remedial steps including additional training, Mr Turner argues the imposition of a pay reduction is needlessly punitive.[13] Rather, he contends an appropriate penalty would be a reprimand.[14]
  2. [38]
    QAS denies that the penalty is 'excessively punitive' or that this was their motive or intent.[15] However, in Rizkallah and Australian Postal Corporation,[16] it was held that '[t]he fact that a formal warning was given could, in itself, be regarded as "punitive"'.[17] In this respect, it submits any sanction available under s 18B of the ASA would equally fit the definition of 'punitive'.[18]

Consideration

  1. [39]
    Mr Turner submits a reduction in pay point is needlessly punitive in circumstances where he has shown remorse and insight.
  2. [40]
    However, QAS is empowered under s 18B of the ASA to impose a disciplinary action it considers 'reasonable in the circumstances'. What is 'reasonable in the circumstances' will depend on the circumstances of each case.
  3. [41]
    Notwithstanding that Mr Turner may have demonstrated regret, QAS evidently felt that a reprimand was not sufficient in the circumstances. Having regard to the seriousness of the substantiated allegations, and consequences which may have flowed from Mr Turner's actions, I agree.
  4. [42]
    I am therefore unable to conclude QAS is using its authority to impose a pay reduction on Mr Turner as a punitive measure.

Is the penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?

  1. [43]
    Mr Turner contends the decision was not fair and reasonable because the reduction in pay of $3,835 is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.[19] Mr Turner submits the following reasons in support of his position:
  1. (a)
    the amount is excessive and casts an unfair financial burden on Mr Turner who supports his family, including his young child who has special needs;
  1. (b)
    conditioning a future increase in pay point subject to satisfactory performance over a 12 month period, renders the reduction potentially permanent, and could therefore result in ongoing loss of pay; and
  2. (c)
    the reduction in pay code removes the opportunity to advance beyond Pay code AF31/3 during the 12 month period, increasing Mr Turner's overall loss.[20]
  1. [44]
    For its part, QAS notes that pursuant to the relevant industrial instruments, the incremental progression in pay points Mr Turner has enjoyed to date have depended on, among other things, his satisfactory work performance and conduct.[21] Accordingly, it submits the only circumstances in which the financial penalty might become permanent would be because of Mr Turner's own poor performance.[22]
  2. [45]
    QAS maintains that its employees perform functions under the ASA which imposes a strict duty of confidentiality about records that identify a person who is, or has, received ambulance services.[23] It highlights comments made by the Crime and Corruption Commission that, where there is a misuse of confidential information, there is a loss of public confidence in that agency.[24] Accordingly, QAS submits it treats the misuse of confidential patient information most seriously.[25]
  3. [46]
    QAS submits the financial penalty will equate to $1,917.50 in the first six months, and $952.00 in the second six months, totalling $2,869.50. By way of comparison, it notes:
  1. (a)
    In June 2020, QAS demoted an officer from Officer in Charge to Advanced Care Paramedic, resulting in a permanent reduction in remuneration of $20,706 per annum, in response to inappropriate access to patient information; and
  1. (b)
    In July 2020, QAS initiated disciplinary action against an officer in relation to the unauthorised use of a confidential patient record, which resulted in a reduction in remuneration of $11,295 over three years; and
  2. (c)
    In April 2021 an officer was terminated for accessing confidential patient information.[26]
  1. [47]
    Consequently, QAS denies the penalty is excessive in circumstances where both allegations have been substantiated without dispute, and where Allegation Two alone might attract a fine of $1,033 and loss of 4 demerit points.[27] In this context it argues the penalty is at the lower end of the spectrum of potential outcomes.[28]
  2. [48]
    Finally, QAS submits Mr Turner did not argue the penalty would impose an unfair financial burden in his response to the show cause notice.[29] Consequently, as that information was not before the decision-maker, QAS contends it is irrelevant to any review of whether the Decision was fair and reasonable.[30]
  3. [49]
    In reply to QAS's submissions, Mr Turner rejects its contentions at [45] and [48], arguing they must fail because 'there is no cogent or probative evidence' to support those conclusions.[31]

Consideration

  1. [50]
    In respect of the quantum of the penalty, there are no materials before the Commission to indicate Mr Turner made submissions to the decision-maker about the financial impact of the penalty.
  2. [51]
    QAS however, has referred to several matters where a more significant disciplinary penalty has been imposed after an officer inappropriately accessed or released confidential information. However, I am unable to draw any comparisons or conclusions with respect to the appropriateness of the penalty in this case, where the information relevant to those other matters is not before the Commission.
  3. [52]
    Nevertheless, considering the allegations together, I accept QAS's submissions that the penalty is on the lower end of the spectrum of penalties which might have been imposed.  This is particularly so in circumstances where Allegation Two alone might have incurred a fine of $1,033 and a loss of three demerit points.
  4. [53]
    With respect to Mr Turner's candour and readiness to accept responsibility for his actions, Mr Turner should be commended. However, regardless of his regret and subsequent insight, Mr Turner engaged in conduct that might have resulted in serious consequences for himself, the relevant patient, and members of the public.
  5. [54]
    It cannot be disputed that the confidentiality obligations imposed on Mr Turner are for the protection of his patients, and other patients of QAS. Regardless of his intentions or the inadvertence of his conduct, the publishing of confidential patient information on social media is not acceptable.
  6. [55]
    Likewise, although the vehicle was stationary at the time, operating a mobile phone while stationary but not parked, is an offence under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld).[32]
  7. [56]
    As noted by Merrell DP in Manttan v State of Queensland (Department of Education),[33] 'the aim of disciplinary proceedings is for the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence'.[34]
  8. [57]
    Although I have some sympathy for Mr Turner's position and the financial burden the penalty might impose on him, on balance, I am satisfied the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances.

Was the Decision Fair and Reasonable?

  1. [58]
    Mr Turner argues the relevant principles in determining whether a decision is 'unreasonable' were outlined in Gilmour v Waddell & Ors.[35]
  2. [59]
    Applying those principles, he contends, renders the penalty unreasonable because the reasonableness of the decision must be considered by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute conferring the power and its real objective.[36] Accordingly, he argues the penalty is one that lacks justification in the circumstances when considered against a background of alternative, intermediary options outlines in s 18B of the ASA.
  3. [60]
    QAS submits the question to be determined is whether, on the basis of the evidence available to the decision-maker at the time, the penalty was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could properly arrive at it.[37] Consequently, it contends the penalty was reasonably open to the decision-maker, and the appeal ought to be dismissed.[38]

Consideration

  1. [61]
    As highlighted by Mr Turner, Ryan J usefully summarised the principles relevant to an assessment of 'reasonableness' in Gilmour as follows:

[207] The focus of a review of the reasonableness, or unreasonableness, of a decision is on whether the decision is so unreasonable that it lacks intelligent justification in all of the relevant circumstances.

[208] The legal standard of unreasonableness is to be considered by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute conferring the power.

[209] A court considering an argument that a decision is unreasonable is not undertaking a merits review. If a decision may be reasonably justified, then it is not an unreasonable decision, even if a reviewing court might disagree with it.[39]

  1. [62]
    Having considered each of Mr Turner's grounds of appeal above, I consider the decision to impose the penalty of the reduction in Mr Turner's pay code to be fair and reasonable.
  2. [63]
    Although the decision-letter itself is somewhat lacking in detail, I am satisfied QAS has demonstrated an intelligent justification for the penalty, and that it is appropriate in the circumstances.

Conclusion

  1. [64]
    For the reasons given above, the penalty was fair and reasonable and ought to be confirmed.
  2. [65]
    I order accordingly.

Order

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 197.

[2] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2); Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5.

[3] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).

[4] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [10(a)]-[10(b)].

[5] Ibid [10(c)].

[6] Ibid [10(c)].

[7] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [10].

[8] Ibid [11].

[9] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [11].

[10] Ibid [13].

[11]Ibid [13].

[12] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [8].

[13] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [12].

[14] Ibid [18].

[15] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [18].

[16] [1991] AATA 611.

[17] Ibid [50].

[18] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [19].

[19] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [8]-[9], citing Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170, [207]-[210]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, [63]-[76].

[20] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [9].

[21] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [6], citing Queensland Ambulance Service Certified Agreement 2017 sch 4.

[22] Ibid [7].

[23] Ibid [9].

[24] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [9], citing Crime and Corruption Commission, Operation Impala - A report on misuse of confidential information in the Queensland public sector (Report, 21 February 2020) 109.

[25] Ibid [9].

[26] Ibid [13].

[27] Ibid [14]-[16].

[28] Ibid [17].

[29] Ibid [5] – Annexure 5.

[30] Ibid [5].

[31] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [16].

[32] s 300.

[33] [2022] QIRC 238.

[34] Ibid [127], citing Nesbit v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2021] ICQ 005, [99]; Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397, 412.

[35] [2019] QSC 170.

[36] Mr Turner's submissions filed 25 March 2022 [14].

[37] QAS's submissions filed 18 March 2022 [20].

[38] Ibid [21]-[22].

[39] [2019] QSC 170.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Turner v Queensland Ambulance Service

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 471

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    02 Dec 2022

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
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 3 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 4 - [2019] QSC 170
Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 319
Manttan v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 238
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 238
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 238
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 249 CLR 332
Cite 2 - (2013) 249 CLR 332
Nesbit v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2021] ICQ 5
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] ICQ 5
Cite 2 - [2021] ICQ 5
Police Service Board v Morris & Martin (1985) 156 CLR 397
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 156 CLR 397
Cite 2 - (1985) 156 CLR 397
Rizkallah and Australian Postal Corporation [1991] AATA 611
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1991] AATA 611
Cite 2 - [1991] AATA 611

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.