Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2023] QIRC 193

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

Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 193

Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 193

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 193

PARTIES: 

Harvey, Kevin

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/1005

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Fair Treatment

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2023

MEMBER:

Knight IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

(Respondent's submissions filed 1 February 2023)

(Appellant's reply submissions filed 6 April 2023)

ORDERS:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against a decision pursuant to s 134 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) – show cause process  – whether security officer used unnecessary force against a patient – whether the employee failed to notify the Department of charge of an indictable offence – where both allegations substantiated – whether decision is fair and reasonable – appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 187, 188, 197

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 73, 90, 93, 132, 134, 324

Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service (1 January 2011) cl 1.5

HR Policy E4 - Employees to notify supervisor if charged with or convicted of an indictable offence

CASES:

Goodall v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 319

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Mr Kevin Harvey is employed by the State of Queensland as a Security Officer in Security Services at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital ('the RBWH') through Queensland Health ('the Department').
  2. [2]
    Mr Harvey appeals a disciplinary decision made by A/Executive Director, Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Ms Gillian Nasato on 22 November 2022 ('the Decision') in which she substantiated two allegations.[1]
  3. [3]
    The allegations relate to Mr Harvey's execution of his duties while interacting with a patient at the RBWH on the evening of 27 September 2020.[2]
  4. [4]
    Such an appeal proceeds under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act').[3] It is not by way of rehearing, but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making process therein.[4] Its stated purpose is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.[5]
  5. [5]
    I note that in addition to appealing the substantiation of the allegations, Mr Harvey's representatives seek to have the proposed disciplinary action of termination of employment in respect of Allegation One, be set aside.[6]
  6. [6]
    I note that a final decision is yet to be made by the Department in relation to a disciplinary penalty in connection with the substantiated allegations. In those circumstances, I consider that a 'proposed' disciplinary penalty is not a decision that can be appealed under section 132 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act') and therefore any submissions or orders sought relating to this issue are beyond the scope of this appeal.[7]
  7. [7]
    The issues to be determined are:
  • was it fair and reasonable for the Acting Executive Director of RBWH to conclude Mr Harvey engaged in the conduct detailed within the two allegations; and
  • did he contravene the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service ('Code of Conduct') as alleged.
  1. [8]
    For the reasons that follow, I consider the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Background

  1. [9]
    The evidence before the Commission included correspondence related to a show cause process undertaken in response to the allegations, a summary of correspondence between Metro North Health ('MNH') and Mr Harvey during that process, a Statement of Reasons regarding the substantiation of the allegations against Mr Harvey, witness statements of RBWH staff; and transcripts of interviews between investigators and staff who were present at the time of the events which are now the subject of this appeal.
  2. [10]
    The Commission was also provided with audio and video footage from body-worn cameras of security officers. It is clear from those materials that from time-to-time security officers at RBWH may be called on to supervise or engage with patients who are mentally unwell or are a threat to their own safety. In some cases, it may be the case that patients require physical restraint.

The Show Cause Process

  1. [11]
    Mr Harvey is employed on a permanent basis as a Security Officer at the RBWH within MNH.
  2. [12]
    On 30 September 2020, Mr Harvey was provided with a letter notifying him of serious allegations that had been made regarding his behaviour in the workplace on 27 September 2020. This letter notified Mr Harvey he would be immediately placed on alternative duties.[8]
  3. [13]
    On 5 October 2021, Mr Harvey was provided with a show cause letter, requesting he respond to one allegation, namely:

Allegation 1

It is alleged that on 27 September 2020, you used inappropriate force and/or displayed inappropriate behaviour during the restraint of a ... patient ... at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.[9]

  1. [14]
    Mr Harvey responded to the allegation through his representative, on 20 October 2021, and: 
  • confirmed that there were criminal proceedings on foot regarding the incident;
  • expressed concern that by responding to the show cause notice he would potentially be in a disadvantaged position for his criminal trial; and
  • indicated that he would be willing to assist in an internal investigation once the criminal proceedings ended.[10]
  1. [15]
    Mr King, Director Patient Services, on behalf of the Department, wrote to Mr Harvey in December 2021 confirming that the department had received Mr Harvey's response and that the matter would be held in abeyance until the criminal proceedings were completed.[11]
  2. [16]
    Mr King's letter also included:

Actions required by you

I request that you promptly provide written advice to me with any and all outcomes in relation to the 22 April 2022 court appearance. Please provide this information in writing to:

Name:

Mr Peter King

Director Patient Services

Metro North Hospital and Health Service

…

Once I have received this information, I will provide you with feedback in relation to my decision regarding progression or otherwise of this matter.[12]

  1. [17]
    On 22 August 2022, Ms Nasato, wrote to Mr Harvey noting that the criminal matters had been discontinued on 2 March 2022 by Queensland Police Prosecutions ('QPP') and that the disciplinary process would resume.[13]
  2. [18]
    Ms Nasato listed two allegations, the second allegation being a new allegation brought against Mr Harvey:

Allegation 1

It is alleged that on 27 September 2020, you used inappropriate force and/or displayed inappropriate behaviour during the restraint of a ... patient ... at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.

Allegation 2

It is alleged that you failed to give notice that you had been charged with an indictable offence(s) in relation to a workplace incident which occurred on 27 September 2020 at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.[14]

  1. [19]
    Ms Nasato, in her correspondence:
  • confirmed there may be grounds to discipline Mr Harvey under sections 187 and 188 of the Public Service Act 2008[15] in the event the allegations were substantiated;
  • included particulars in relation to each of the two allegations;
  • stated that in relation to Allegation One, she considered there may be grounds for Mr Harvey to be disciplined:
    • pursuant to s 187(1)(b) and/or s 187(1)(g) of the Public Service Act 2008 in that he may be guilty of misconduct and/or contravening, without reasonable excuse, cl 1.5 of the Code of Conduct.[16]
  • stated in relation to Allegation Two, she considered there may be grounds for Mr Harvey to be disciplined:
    • pursuant to s 181,[17] in that he may have failed to give notice to his employer that he had been charged with an indictable offence immediately after being charged.
  • Included summaries of the body-worn camera footage, various witness statements, photographs of bruising on the patient and transcripts of interviews; and
  • Provided Mr Harvey with 14 days to respond to the allegations.[18]
  1. [20]
    Through his union representative, Mr Harvey responded on 30 September 2022 with the following:
  • I, Kevin Harvey as an employee of Metro North HHS was a victim of an Assault by [the patient];
  • At no time during or after I was assaulted by ... [the Patient]... have I been offered any support by anyone at Metro North HHS;
  • I have been treated as the guilty party by Metro North HHS and been subject to disciplinary action by way of removal from my normal duties and hidden in a secluded workplace for over 12 months;
  • During this period of seclusion, not one member of the Metro North HHS Management team has checked on my welfare;
  • This to me, is an indication of how members of the Security staff are treated, which breaches my human rights;
  • With regards to the actual incident, as seen and heard on the body worn cameras, ... [the Patient]... stated that she was "going to kill me";
  • This threat is an "assault";
  • As ... [the Patient]... advanced on me, and officer stepped in and started the restraint, I assisted this officer as per training requirements;
  • We were not being guided by any Clinician at this point in time;
  • They were either absent or silent, and we were therefore left on our own;
  • I don't believe there was a Senior Security Officer present;
  • Once restrained by Officers, ... [the Patient]... then attempted to bite me. Stated that she was going to bite me, and this is on the Body worn camera footage. She made several attempts to do so;
  • Under the Criminal Code 1899 sect 245 this constitutes Assault;
  • I accept my tone was a little strong, but I had just been threatened with my life and had several attempts made to injure me;
  • I work in a dangerous workplace and (sic) self preservation is one factor that we take into consideration, that the majority of other employees don't have to consider every day at work;
  • The Queensland Police Prosecutions withdrew their case, and offered to reimburse my legal costs as they admitted that there was no case to answer.[19]

The Decision

  1. [21]
    By letter dated 22 November 2022, Ms Nasato advised Mr Harvey she considered both allegations to be substantiated on the balance of probabilities.[20]
  2. [22]
    In relation to Allegation One, Ms Nasato observed:

On review of the body worn camera footage, you are seen standing in the doorway of the patient's room and the patient is heard repetitively saying "get him to leave" and "I said do not bring him up". It is evident that the patient is starting to become distressed at your mere presence outside of the room and starts to display aggressive and threatening behaviour towards you. My view is that you would have heard the commentary from the patient and the threatening remarks directed towards you, however you then made a conscious decision to become more present in the patients view and subsequently entered the room, notwithstanding the fact that three security officers were already present in the room.

...

At this point, you physically intervened by grabbing the patients right wrist/arm forcing her backwards onto the bed. While on the bed, the other security officers assist with the restraints. The patient is then seen attempting to get up from a lying position and either attempts to or does bite you, in which you respond by placing your body, although not touching, over the patient in a downward motion forcing her back into a supine position. You then place your forearm on the patient's cheek bone and apply pressure. During your verbal interactions with the patient, you are heard yelling [in part],

  • "you don't threaten me",
  • "you don't threaten anyone here"; and
  • "you do as you are told".

...

While I appreciate that the patient may have been difficult to manage and you have asserted that your "tone was a little strong", it is my view that your communication with the patient was completely unprofessional and not in accordance with the manner in which employee's should be dealing with patients. Your level of aggression is readily apparent in your language and the tone used in the delivery of the same.

...

It is my finding that you failed to discharge the above-mentioned obligations when you used inappropriate force and displayed inappropriate behaviour during the restraint of a patient.

...

While I acknowledge this situation escalated quickly, I still expect that you would follow the appropriate Maybo training techniques including maintaining contact with the patients face with an open palm to reduce repeated attempts to bite with an appropriate level of force and putting/requesting a mask to be put over the patient's mouth, especially as the patient stated she would bite. It is my view that you failed to follow the appropriate techniques … which resulted in the patient repeatedly being able to move her head towards you in an alleged attempt to bite.

Furthermore, as a security officer your role is to consider the most appropriate response to a situation to minimise the escalation of an incident, to minimise harm to yourself and others, and to minimise the level of force required to effectively complete the task required of you. In this instance, your decisions and actions have not demonstrated these considerations and subsequently resulted in the patient becoming distressed, which escalated her anxiety and threatening behaviour towards you. Put simply if you had just removed yourself from the situation, rather than attempting to demonstrate to the patient who was in charge of the situation this whole matter could have been avoided. There were a number of security officers already present in the room and speaking with the patient, the patient was agitated by your presence outside the room and there was no necessity for you to enter the room, other than to deliberately escalate the situation.[21]

  1. [23]
    In her reasons for the decision, Ms Nasato:
  • concluded Mr Harvey would have been aware of the Patient's situation given the volume of commentary and threatening remarks prior to entering the room;[22]
  • noted Mr Harvey made a conscious decision to involve himself in  the situation and make his presence known to the Patient, despite there already being three security officers in the Patient's room;[23]
  • observed the Patient was unable to advance towards Mr Harvey as two officers were holding the Patient's wrists/arms, similarly a third officer was standing nearby and appeared visibly ready to assist;[24]
  • noted that Mr Harvey yelled at the Patient throughout their interaction;[25]
  • observed the Patient became increasingly distressed in response to Mr Harvey's actions;[26]
  • accepted Mr Harvey used the Maybo technique by using his open palm to hold the Patient's head, but raised concerns about the level of force and the continuous use of the technique;[27]
  • rejected Mr Harvey's position he may have been a 'little strong', concluding instead that he was overly aggressive to the patient and unnecessarily inserted himself into the situation while also disregarding the patient's wishes;[28]
  • rejected Mr Harvey's assertion he was acting in self-defence noting the patient's slight physique and  mental state;[29]
  • raised concerns Mr Harvey failed to take responsibility for his actions or display remorse towards the patient;[30] 
  • determined Mr Harvey's behaviour did not meet the standard expected from a security officer;[31] and
  • concluded Mr Harvey failed to comply with his obligations under the Code of Conduct.[32]
  1. [24]
    Similarly, Ms Nasato concluded Allegation Two was substantiated in that Mr Harvey failed to notify MNH when he was initially charged and did not provide notification when the charges were withdrawn.[33]
  2. [25]
    In relation to Allegation 2, Ms Nasato:
  • acknowledged correspondence received from Mr Harvey's lawyers on the 20 October 2021, which was when the Department was first made aware that Mr Harvey had been charged with an indictable offence;[34]
  • raised concerns Mr Harvey had not disclosed the charge earlier in circumstances where the charges involved a patient of the Department;[35] and
  • observed that despite being requested by Mr King to inform the Department of the outcome of his scheduled court appearance, it had instead been necessary for MNH to contact QPP to determine whether the matter had been discontinued.[36]
  1. [26]
    In respect of Allegation 2, Ms Nasato concluded Mr Harvey failed to comply with:
  • HR Policy E4 (QH-POL-127) Employees to notify supervisor if charged with or convicted of an indictable offence ('HR Policy E4');[37] and
  • The Code of Conduct for the Public Service: Principal 1.5 Demonstrate a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct, specifically 'comply with legislative and/or policy obligations to report employee criminal charges and convictions.'[38]
  1. [27]
    While  no decision has been made in relation to disciplinary action at this time, Ms Nasato proposed the following:
  • Termination of employment – Allegation One; and
  • Reprimand – Allegation Two.

The relevant statutes and legal principles

  1. [28]
    Mr Harvey filed his appeal before the commencement of the PS Act on 1 March 2023.
  2. [29]
    Section 289 of the PS Act repealed the former Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) which was in effect at the time of the disciplinary finding decision and when Mr Harvey filed his appeal.
  3. [30]
    Section 324 of the PS Act relevantly provides:
  1. (1)
    This section applied if –
  1. (a)
    before the commencement, a person appealed against a decision under the repealed Act, section 194; and
  1. (b)
    immediately before the commencement, the appeal had not been decided.
  1. (2)
    From the commencement, the appeal must be heard and decided under chapter 3, part 10.
  1. [31]
    Mr Harvey's appeal had not been decided before the commencement of the PS Act Mr Harvey's appeal has therefore be decided under ch 3, pt 10 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld).

The Public Sector Act 2022

  1. [32]
    Section 91 of the PS Act relevantly provides:
  1. 91
    Grounds for discipline
  1. (1)
    A public sector employee's chief executive may discipline the employee if the chief executive is reasonably satisfied the employee has –
  1. …
  1. (h)
    contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action.
  1. [33]
    The Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service provides:

1.5 Demonstrate a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct

We have a responsibility to always conduct and present ourselves in a professional manner, and demonstrate respect for all persons, whether fellow employees, clients or members of the public.

We will:

  1. a.
    treat co-workers, clients and members of the public with courtesy and respect, be appropriate in our relationships with them, and recognise that others have the right to hold views which may differ from our own
  1. b.
    ensure our conduct reflects our commitment to a workplace that is inclusive and free from harassment
  1. c.
    ensure our fitness for duty, and the safety, health and welfare of ourselves and others in the workplace, whether co-workers or clients
  1. d.
    ensure our private conduct maintains the integrity of the public service and our ability to perform our duties, and
  1. e.
    comply with legislative and/or policy obligations to report employee criminal charges and convictions.
  1. [34]
    Section 73 of the PS Act provides:
  1. 73
    Public sector employee must disclose to chief executive charge or conviction for indictable offence

(1) This section applied if a public sector employee is—

(a) charged with an indictable offence; or

(b) convicted by a court of an indictable offence.

(2) The employee must give the employee's chief executive a notice stating—

(a) if the employee has been charged with an indictable offence—

(i)  that the employee has been charged; and

(ii) the details of the alleged offence; or

  1. …
  1. (3)
    The notice must be given—
  1. (a)
    if the employee has been charged with an indictable offence—immediately after the employee is charged; or
  1. …
  1. [35]
    The HR Policy E4 relevantly provides:

An employee charged with or convicted of an indictable offence is to immediately notify their manager in writing, but not later than 48 hours after the charge or conviction.

The requirement to notify exists while a person is an employee of Queensland Health, including when the employee is on leave with or without pay, or on secondment to another agency.

Notification of a charge or conviction is required irrespective of whether the offence was committed in Australia or in another country.

Refer to the definitions section of this policy for information regarding what constitutes 'charged' or 'convicted', and for the definition of 'indictable offence'.

In addition to an action which may be considered an indictable offence under an Act, an omission to do something required under an Act may also be an indictable offence.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [36]
    In his notice of appeal, Mr Harvey relies on the following grounds in relation to Allegations One and Two:
  1. 11.
    The Appellant submits that in consideration of the above, the:
  1. a.
    Appellant's outline of events was comprehensive, and Mr Nahrung reinforces the same;
  1. b.
    Appellant did not instigate the restraint, and it was his colleague that did the same, and that the Appellant was there to assist with the restraint, which should be considered as a mitigated circumstance;
  1. c.
    patient instigated the restraint via her conduct of attempting to kick the Appellant and the same should be counted as a mitigating circumstance; and
  1. d.
    the Appellant did not display 'inappropriate force and/or displayed inappropriate behaviour during the restraint of a female patient... at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.'

...

  1. 14.
    The Appellant submits that the decision making of the Respondent considering the material for Allegation 2 was unfair and unreasonable on the following basis,
  1. a.
    the Queensland Police Prosecutions withdrew their case against the Appellant and that they offered to pay his legal costs as well; and
  1. b.
    in consideration of item (a) above, it is a mitigating factor that should be taken into account for the determination; and
  1. c.
    as the case had been withdrawn, there is no charge to be raised with the Respondent.[39]

What Decisions can an Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [37]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the IR Act provides that I may:
  • confirm the decision appealed against; or
  • set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
  • set the decision aside and return it to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Was the Decision Fair and Reasonable?

Was it fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to conclude Mr Harvey engaged in the conduct the subject of the two allegations, and if so, did he contravene the Code, the PS Act and HR Policy E4?.

Allegation One

  1. [38]
    Allegation One is that, during his shift on 27 September 2020, Mr Harvey used inappropriate force and displayed inappropriate behaviour when restraining a patient.
  2. [39]
    The particulars included:
  1. Body worn camera footage of the incident shows the following:
  1. a.
    Upon your arrival at the patient's room, you are seen standing in the doorway of the patient's room.
  1. b.
    You appear to suddenly move forward pushing past Security Officer (SO) Mr Aaron Ryan causing him to lose his balance and stumble to his left.
  1. c.
    You grab the patient's right arm forcing her backward onto the bed.
  1. d.
    SO Mr Jake Nahrung appears surprised by your sudden actions and stated words to the effect of 'oh no'.
  1. e.
    The patient attempts to get up from her lying position, at which point you forcibly push your body over her in a downward motion forcing her back into a supine position.
  1. f.
    The patient then attempts to bite you, at which time you push the patient's head downward and to the side. The patient states, 'Kevin your fucking hurting me' and you appear to release your hold.
  1. g.
    You proceed to push her head down onto the bed on three (3) more occasions.
  1. 2.
    On 27 September 2020, Mr Darren Yeats, Acting Senior Security Officer completed a security incident report which provided the following details (in part) (Attachment 4):
  1. a.
    "...at about 2155hrs SO Nahrung arrived at Building 15 and remarking on the behaviour of SO HARVEY."
  1. b.
    "...at approximately 2208hrs SO Clavarino and SO Ryan arrived at Building 15 and both made verbal statements that SO HARVEY had acted inappropriately to the point of excessive force."
  1. 3.
    On 28 September 2020, Witness 1 provided a statement in which the following was stated relating to your actions during the incident (in part) (Attachment 5):
  1. a.
    "...one security guard in particular was standing at the patients head of bed on the left side. The patient attempted what looked like to sit up, and at this time security guard very forcibly and aggressively used his [your] hand and pushed the patients head into her pillow. This happened multiple times, he [you] was very aggressive in the way he [you] handled the patient, and kept his [your] hand pressed against her (the patient) face/head so she couldn't move it."
  1. b.
    "... every time she (the patient) attempted to move or sit up; he [you] pushed her (the patient) head back down."
  1. c.
    "...he [you] began yelling back at her (the patient) very inappropriately and loudly..."
  1. d.
    "...4 point restraints...were placed on the patient, but this particular security guard kept tightening them."
  1. e.
    "...I couldn't appropriately assess the patient as he [you] wouldn't let go of her (the patient)."
  1. f.
    "...I have never witnessed a patient be treated so poorly ...the language and tone of voice used towards her (the patient) was offensive and not necessary."
  1. 4.
    On 28 September 2020, Witness 2 provided a statement in which the following was stated (Attachment 6):
  1. a
    "Security left once (the patient) had restraints applied...heard to say, 'it should not have come to that',
  1. b
    "He [you] approached the nursing station smiling and stated 'I won't put up with her nonsense.""When I asked if (the patient) only reacts to him that way he said "yes"".
  1. 5
    On 10 October 2020, Witness 3 provided a statement in which the following was stated relating to your actions during the incident (Attachment 7):
  1. a.
    "...the security had (the patient's) face pushed into the pillow and facing the doorway with extreme force and she was screaming in pain."
  1. b.
    "He was very aggressive when speaking to her."
  1. 6.
    On 8 January 2021 Mr Nahrung participated in an interview and provided the following (in part) (Attachment 8):
  1. a.
    "...he's [you] come through and grabbed her...quite forcefully moved her on to the bed."
  1. b.
    "...Kev's sort of used his forearm to sort of, hit her face away and apply pressure to her cheek bone into the pillow."
  1. c.
    ...it was done with quite some force. And more force than I was comfortable with."
  1. 7.
    On 15 January 2021, SO Mr William Clavarino participated in an interview and provided the following (Attachment 9):
  1. a.
    "...at this point, Kev [you] reached over the officers involved and took (the patient's) right wrist and applied a wrist lock and threw (the patient) into the bed, putting her arm into a chicken wing position behind her shoulder."
  1. b.
    "(the patient) was screaming in pain and also screamed that she will bite Kev [you] if he does not stop."
  1. c.
    "...because Kev [you] didn't stop (the patient) attempted to bite Kev [you]...Kev [you] pushed his...elbow, arm, hand because it was in one motion, into (the patient's) face with force that was not needed."
  1. d.
    "...Jake [Mr Nahrung] told Kev [you] to stop and ease up on the arm and the face. Kev [you] had yelled back to Jake [Mr Nahrung]...go home."
  1. e.
    "...Jake [Mr Nahrung] again asked Key [you] to relax with no reply or change from Kev [you]."
  1. f.
    "Jake [Mr Nahrung] had seen enough and did not feel comfortable being involved in this and let go of the left arm...and left the room."
  1. g.
    "Kev [you] kept allowing (the patient) to sit up and try and bite him, so he [you] could slam her back into the bed by her face, on at least five to ten occasions."
  1. 8.
    On 1 October 2020, the patient provided photographs of bruising under her chin and on her right arm following the incident (Attachment 10).[40]

Allegation Two

  1. [40]
    The allegation is that Mr Harvey failed to give notice to the Department he had been charged with an indictable offence in relation to a workplace incident which occurred on 27 September 2020.
  2. [41]
    The particulars included:
  1. 1.
    On 27 September 2020, you attended a patient related incident in Ward 9A South at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
  1. …
  1. 4.
    In a letter dated 5 October 2021, Mr King advised you of the allegation made against you, the particulars that supported the allegation and provided you with an opportunity to respond.
  1. 5.
    In a letter dated 20 October 2021 from Mr Shane McDowell, Senior Associate, Russo Lawyers on your behalf, he stated (in part) (Attachment 11):
  1. a.
    "Our office acts for Mr Kevin Shaun Harvey with respect to a criminal proceeding of assault occasioning bodily harm, currently listed for hearing on 22 April 2021 (sic)."
  1. b.
    "These allegations and the particulars of them form the substantive particulars of criminal proceedings which have not yet been resolved."
  1. c.
    "Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, our client will of course be in a position to assist your investigation..."
  1. 6.
    The indictable offence(s) were listed for hearing on 22 April 2022.
  1. 7.
    In June 2022, the Service was informed by Police Prosecutions that your matter was discontinued on 2 March 2022.
  1. 8.
    You did not provide notice to your site Coordinator that you had been charged with an indictable offence(s) prior to the advice received from Mr McDowell dated 20 October 2021.
  1. 9.
    You did not provide notice to your Site Coordinator or the Service that your criminal proceedings had been discontinued.[41]

The Evidence

  1. [42]
    Included in the materials filed with the Commission were a series of transcripts of interviews undertaken with Security Officers who were present during Mr Harvey's interaction with  the Patient on the evening of 27 September 2020.
  2. [43]
    In an interview with Mr Jake Nahrung, he explained to an investigator that he and other security officers on his shift had managed to keep the Patient relatively calm during the evening notwithstanding her attempts to self-harm, but that she started to escalate as soon as Mr Harvey appeared at the door to her room.[42]
  3. [44]
    Mr Nahrung told the investigator he attempted to persuade Mr Harvey to stay outside the room, noting:

So he's arrived to the door with a, with the other officer and she's, from her bed, spotted Kev, and she's straight away started to escalate again and say don't let him in the room, don't let him in the room. And I've noticed it was Kev and I've said, look like he, he can stay out in the hallway. You've just got to stay calm, alright. If you just stay out in the hallway. And at that point Kevin's come into the room saying that, you know no one sort of, words to the effect of no one, you know you don't tell me where I can and can't work, stuff like that. He's come into the room. [The Patient] then further escalated by threatening harm towards Kev...[43]

  1. [45]
    Mr Nahrung stated:

... So anyway, we try not to touch as as, as much as we can but as Kevin's presence had escalated her and she had attempted to kick at Kev and that, we've put her back on to the bed. So the other two officers were holding [the Patient's] legs. I was on her left side. Kev was on her right side. She continued to, to get wound up by the whole situation of her being held, screaming at Kevin. I think at some point she tried to bite, maybe tried to bite his hand that was holding her face away and apply pressure to her cheek bone into the pillow. Look, I, I, I do acknowledge that she, she was probably trying to, to bite Kev but the, the whole point was like, you know hem yeah she didn't want him in here at all, let alone touching, touching her. And she was like, doing everything she could, could do to like, get him away. So the bite, the biting came.

...

I said to him, I, I sort of, I tried prompting Kevin, look let's, let's ease up, let's back off. You know I think we should, you know let her go because, you know before, we had her sitting on the bed quietly. We, we should try and get (sic) act to a point, where we can release her again and no longer require any physical contact. And I, I think at that point, he's said to me, oh you just go home because I, he knew I was at the end of my shift and I think he was upset that he wasn't sort of, on the same wave length with him. I was sort of, being more standoff-ish like, I didn't, I didn't want to engage what was happening, so I was trying to prompt him, and to, to sort of to back away. And it sort of wasn't getting anywhere. And that went on for a couple of minutes and then I sort of, I just, there was enough guards there, I think may, my relief had arrived and I, I just had enough. I didn't want to be a part of it anymore, so I just said look, I'm, I'm, I'm off, I'm going. And I've, I've effectively like, I've been replaced and I walked away. And I just had enough or seeing what I was seeing,[44]

  1. [46]
    In a separate interview with another security officer, Mr Calavarino recalled Mr Nahrung asking Mr Harvey to ease up. He observed that although Mr Harvey may have been the most senior officer in the room, it would have been standard practice for Mr Nahrung to control the situation given he had been engaging with the patient earlier on the shift, noting:

GH Okay. So in a situation like that, who, who's basically in control or who would take control?

WC Well, I would, I would call. Normally, okay, with any job we turn up to...

GH Yeah.

WC ...if our senior's there, he's in control.

GH Yeah. Yeah.

  1. WC
    Right. But if that patient decides how we run it, that I, I like this person and they're going to react better to, to me then I'm in control. I make the calls.

GH Yeah

WC So we do switch it up, you know with patient's reacting.

GH  Yeah

WC In this case, Kev took control.

GH Yeah.

WC He, but he didn't have control. This was Jake's job.

GH Yeah.

WC Jake spent all shift with her, on a special, calming her down.

GH Yeah. Yeah.

WC There was no control in that job.

GH No control.

WC It's as simple as that. They're, they're, you know for officers to be telling another officer to stop...

GH Yeah

WC ...and him not listening, there's no control.[45]

  1. [47]
    Mr Calavarino stated:

Jake and Ryan grabbed on to [the Patient] and asked her to come down and return to bed. At this point, Kev reached over the officers involved and took [the Patient's] right wrist and, and applied a wrist lock and threw [the Patient] into the bed, putting her arm into a chicken wing position behind her shoulder. [The Patient] was screaming in pain and also screamed that she will bite Kev, if he does not stop. Because Kev didn't stop, [the Patient] attempted to bite Kev.

... when we do get bitten and spat at and that, when we do take head control or face control or whatever you want to talk, tell. We're trained and we all know, that once you have that control, there's no need to let it go until the job's complete. You can put a mask on. You get a staff member put a mask on. The main thing is the baiting. He would, he would hit her and then lift off...and wait for her to lunge again, knowing she would. She has no control over this.[46]

  1. [48]
    During the investigation into the incident, several witness statements were obtained from other medical staff who were present at the relevant time.
  2. [49]
    Witness 1,[47] an Acting Clinical Nurse, who was the shift coordinator, commented that when she became aware security officers were entering the Patient's room, she went to assist and observed the following:

When I arrived the patient was being held down by her limbs by 5 security guards. One security guard in particular was standing at the patients head of bed on the left side. The patient attempted what looked like to sit up, and at this time the security guard very forcibly and aggressively used his hand and pushed the patients head into her pillow. This happened multiple times, he was very aggressive in the way he handled the patient, and kept his hand pressed against her face/head so she couldn't move it, every time she attempted to move or sit up he pushed her head back down. The patient was extremely distressed by this stage and was asking for this security to leave the room. He began yelling back at her very inappropriately and loudly which in turn made the patient more upset. A surgical registrar was on the ward at the time and charted an IM. 4 point restraints were also placed on her in the hope she would calm down so the security guard would get off her. The restraints were placed on the patient, but this particular security guard kept tightening them. I felt very intimidated by this man and I felt I couldn't appropriately assess the patient as he wouldn't let go of her. The language and tone of voice he used towards her was offensive and not necessary.[48]

  1. [50]
    Witness 2,[49] a registered nurse stated:

Approximately 5 minutes later two more security guards arrived. One of whom is the guard in question. As the officers walked into the room, I heard [the Patient] become more forceful in her words and escalate in volume. I approached and stood outside her door observing the situation. Five officers (sic) we restraining [the Patient] as nurses applied restraints. Due to no lights being on in the room I only observed RN and CN in the room with the five security.

One officer in particular was holding [the Patient's] right shoulder/arm. [The Patient] was repeatedly telling those around her that she did not like this particular officer. I heard the officer respond to her including "you need to behave," and "don’t you dare bite me." At one point I heard [the Patient's] voice sounding muffled, she appeared more distressed.

Security left once [the Patient] had restraints applied, the other four officers left being heard to say, "it should not have come to that."

When the particular officer left the room, he had gloves on with the top half of the right pointer finger missing. He approached the nursing station smiling and stated, "I won't put up with her nonsense." He appeared happy to come back should [the Patient] escalate again. When I asked if [the Patient] only reacts to him that way he said "yes." I asked him if it would have been better to remove himself from the situation if it made [the Patient] escalate further. He did not answer and left the ward shortly after.[50]

  1. [51]
    Witness 3,[51] a registered nurse stated:

…We placed restraints on her arms and legs to enable us to give her an im injection and get the security guards out of her room. During this procedure I noticed that the security had [the Patient's] face pushed into the pillow and facing the doorway with extreme force and she was screaming in pain. He was very aggressive when speaking to her. Cn and myself quickly tried to get the restraint and him out of the room. [The Patient] was given Im injection and restraints were on until she calmed down. Rn stayed with [the Patient] until she settled.[52]

  1. [52]
    The Commission was provided with the body-worn footage from Security Officers Harvey, Nahrung, Clavarino and Ryan which was taken in the lead up to and during the incident.[53]
  2. [53]
    The body worn camera footage of Mr Nahrung and Mr Ryan, in the period before Mr Harvey arrives at the Patient's room, reveals that although the Patient appears, at times, to be agitated, restless and looking for opportunities to self-harm, both security officers were actively taking steps to de-escalate the behaviour through distraction, conversation and other techniques. The Patient appears to be relatively calm during this period.[54]
  3. [54]
    Security Officers Nahrung's and Clavarino's body camera footage in the period 21.49hrs to 21.52hrs[55] depicts: 
  • The Patient slightly agitated, with Mr Nahrung observed to be attempting to calm her;
  • The Patient sitting on her bed interacting with Security Officers Nahrung, Clavarino and Ryan in a non-aggressive manner;
  • The Patient reacting aggressively towards Mr Harvey when she observes him standing outside her room;
  • The Patient threatening to kill Mr Harvey, as he moved to the entrance of the patient's room;
  • The Patient moving  out of her bed and becomes increasingly aggressive towards Mr Harvey;
  • Mr Harvey tells the Patient to 'get back to bed' on several occasions;
  • Mr Harvey moving forward quickly and grabbing the Patient's arm, forcing her back to the bed;
  • The Patient threatens to kill Mr Harvey;
  • The Patient trying  get up from her position and attempts to bite Mr Harvey, who forcibly pushes her back into a supine position;
  • Mr Harvey forcing the Patient down on the bed, and saying in a loud voice, 'You don't threaten me – you don't threaten anyone here – you do as you are told!'.
  • The Patient repeatedly screaming for Mr Harvey to get off her face;
  • Mr Harvey roughly pushing the Patient's head downwards onto the bed and stating words to the effect, 'you have tried to bite me – I am not here for that';
  • The Patient screams and tells other medical and security staff that Mr Harvey was 'fucking hurting me';
  • Mr Harvey releasing the Patient's head but then forcibly pushing it back down on at least three more occasions;
  • Mr Harvey and the Patient yell at each other, with the Patient screaming for Mr Harvey to stop touching her and Mr Harvey repeatedly reminding the Patient she was trying to bite him;
  • The Patient telling other officers and staff that she will calm down if Mr Harvey leaves the room;
  • The Patient screaming for Mr Harvey to be removed from the room;
  • Mr Harvey forcibly pushing the Patient's head back down and calling for her to be restrained; and
  • Mr Harvey rejecting a request from Mr Nahrung that the other security officers take over the situation.
  1. [55]
    Other footage taken from the body-worn cameras of security officers who remained in the room following Mr Nahrung's departure, depicts restraints being applied to the Patient and the clinical staff taking over and trying to calm the patient.[56]
  2. [56]
    After the patient is restrained, Mr Harvey can be heard advising a colleague that the Patient has done this before, has threatened to kill him on other occasions and 'arcs up' because she does not like him [Mr Harvey].[57]

Submissions

Allegation One

  1. [57]
    Mr Harvey denies he displayed inappropriate force or behaviour during the restraint of the Patient, submitting:
  • he was threatened by the Patient;
  • it was necessary to restrain the Patient;
  • he assisted his colleagues with the restraint process; and
  • the Patient attempted to bite him.[58]
  1. [58]
    Mr Harvey accepts he was a 'little too strong' but maintains this was a result of being threatened by the Patient.[59]
  2. [59]
    Relying heavily on the statement of Mr Jake Nahrung, who was present in the Patient's room at the time of the incident, Mr Harvey maintains the Patient 'instigated the restraint via her conduct of attempting to kick [Mr Harvey]'.[60]
  3. [60]
    In circumstances where the Patient was being difficult to manage and threatening Mr Harvey, he maintains the substantiation of Allegation One is unfair and unreasonable.[61]
  4. [61]
    Revisiting its decision of 22 November 2022, the Department highlights:
  • the language and physical actions of Mr Harvey towards the Patient, which included Mr Harvey leaning over closely to the Patient's face, yelling aggressively and repeatedly and forcibly pushing the Patient's face into the pillow;[62]
  • the level of force applied by Mr Harvey which it argues was disproportionate to the threat of the Patient biting, particularly when regard is had to the Patient's slight build, the absence of any items in the Patient's possession to inflict harm and the Patient's mental state;[63]
  • Mr Harvey's failure to implement the Maybo de-escalation techniques he had learnt in his role as a security guard, particularly in circumstances where it was reasonable to assume he was aware his presence upset the patient;[64]
  • Mr Harvey's failure to remove himself from being near the Patient, resulting in an escalation of the situation;[65]
  • Mr Harvey deliberately choosing to assert his presence by entering the room, despite being aware that his presence was upsetting the Patient.[66]
  1. [62]
    The Department does not accept Mr Harvey felt at risk or threatened to the extent that he needed to exit the situation by asking the other officers who were present to take over.[67]
  2. [63]
    In reply, Mr Harvey contends:
  • he did not have any issues with the Patient during other interactions;[68]
  • the Patient's language towards him was aggressive;[69]
  • in response to the Department's concerns about the manner in which he was speaking to the Patient, that he was merely communicating, but that in any event he could easily be retrained in communication techniques;[70]
  • he did not push through a fellow security guard to get to the Patient;[71] and
  • it was necessary to restrain the Patient.[72]
  1. [64]
    Mr Harvey argues he was not able to safely remove himself from the room as:

... [he] was in the corner of the room and unable to safely exit as the room was full of staff and releasing the patient would allow the patient to potentially take an act of violent aggression against him.[73]

Allegation Two

  1. [65]
    Mr Harvey maintains the substantiation of Allegation Two is unfair and unreasonable, submitting:
  1. a.
    the Queensland Police Prosecutions withdrew their case against the Appellant and that they offered to pay his legal costs as well; and
  1. b.
    in consideration of item (a) above, it is a mitigating factor that should be taken into account for the determination; and
  1. c.
    as the case had been withdrawn, there is no charge to be raised with the Respondent.[74]
  1. [66]
    In its submissions, the Department contends it was concerned Mr Harvey did not disclose the charge, particularly given it resulted from an incident in the workplace which involved a patient.[75]

Consideration

Allegation One

  1. [67]
    Having reviewed the evidence before the decision-maker, I am not persuaded by Mr Harvey's submissions in relation to Allegation One, for several reasons.
  2. [68]
    First, having regard to the body-worn camera footage and the transcript of interviews with Mr Nahrung and Mr Clavarino, I am satisfied that although the Patient was at times agitated and restless before the arrival of Mr Harvey, she was for the most part generally calm in the period before he entered the room. It was not until Mr Harvey arrived and the Patient became aware of his presence that her behaviour started to escalate.
  3. [69]
    I accept that in any hospital environment there will be occasions where patients who are mentally unwell, may take a particular 'set' against a staff member. Certainly, in the body worn footage provided to the Commission, Mr Harvey can be heard telling a colleague that the Patient did not like him and had 'arced up' in the past.[76]
  4. [70]
    Depending on available resources and personnel, as highlighted by Mr Clavarino, I also accept that in those circumstances an appropriate course to maintain control over the situation, would be to place a security officer in the room, who had the capacity to calm rather than agitate the Patient.
  5. [71]
    Had Mr Harvey stayed outside the room or removed himself from the area, it is possible that would have been the end of the matter. Instead, it seems Mr Harvey chose to unnecessarily inject himself into the Patient's environment, notwithstanding the Patient was restrained by other security guards and was not a threat to him.
  6. [72]
    In my view, Mr Harvey's actions at that time led to a serious escalation in the Patient's aggression towards him and her subsequent behaviour.
  7. [73]
    Second, it is clear from viewing the body worn camera footage, that Mr Harvey:
  • physically intervened by grabbing the Patient's wrist and arm, forcing her onto the bed;
  • repeatedly yelled at the Patient; and
  • aggressively forced the patients head downwards towards the bed on multiple occasions.[77]
  1. [74]
    The body worn camera footage of both Mr Nahrung and Mr Clavarino support a conclusion that the force and language used by Mr Harvey during his interaction with the Patient was both inappropriate and unnecessary. Moreover, that he failed to consistently apply the appropriate Maybo training techniques by maintaining contact with the Patient's face with an open palm, which resulted in the Patient repeatedly being able to move her head towards Mr Harvey in an attempt to bite him.
  2. [75]
    Thirdly, it is true that the Patient repeatedly threatened Mr Harvey, however the behaviour complained about by Mr Harvey only escalated in a meaningful way once he entered the room.
  3. [76]
    Moreover, having considered the Patient's physique and the number of security guards who were present and actively involved in restraining the Patient at the time the threats were being made, I consider it was open to Ms Nasato to question the extent to which the threats could have been acted on by the Patient and I am satisfied the level of force used by Mr Harvey in the situation was disproportionate.
  4. [77]
    Fourthly, on at least two occasions Mr Harvey's colleagues attempted to suggest the situation could be better managed if he distanced himself from the Patient. Mr Harvey rejected those suggestions, choosing instead to remain in the environment despite the Patient becoming increasingly agitated.   
  5. [78]
    For the reasons given above, I am not able to accept Mr Harvey's explanation of his conduct.
  6. [79]
    On the evidence from the body worn camera footage, witness statements and the transcripts of interviews with other security guards who were present at the time of the incident, I find Allegation One has been substantiated on the balance of probabilities.
  7. [80]
    Finally, I consider it was reasonable for Ms Nasato to conclude Mr Harvey contravened, without a reasonable excuse, cl 1.5 of the Code of Conduct. This part of the Code provides that employees will treat clients, in this case a patient, with courtesy and respect. In my view, Mr Harvey departed from the requirements under the Code, when he used inappropriate and unnecessary force during his physical contact and repeatedly yelled at the Patient.

Allegation Two

  1. [81]
    Allegation Two is that Mr Harvey failed to give notice he had been charged with an indictable offence in relation to the incident which occurred with a patient on 27 September 2020 at the RBWH.
  2. [82]
    Section 73 of the PS Act provides that where a public sector employee is charged with an indictable offence the employee must, immediately after being charged, provide the chief executive with a notice stating that they have been charged and the details of the offence.
  3. [83]
    Similarly, HR Policy E4 provides that an employee charged with or convicted of an indictable offence is to immediately notify their manager in writing, but not later than 48 hours after the charge or conviction.
  4. [84]
    It is true that on 20 October 2021, Mr Shane McDowell a Senior Associate at Russo Lawyers wrote to MNH advising his firm was acting for Mr Harvey in respect of a criminal proceeding of assault occasioning bodily harm.
  5. [85]
    Unfortunately, the notification on behalf of Mr Harvey was not provided immediately or within 48 hours of him being charged with the offence. Importantly, the offence arose out of an incident which occurred in the workplace and which MNH should have been advised about as soon as reasonably possible.
  6. [86]
    In any event, I accept Mr Harvey had an obligation pursuant to s 73 of the PS Act and HR Policy E4 to notify his manager as soon as he was issued with the charges. In my view, Mr Harvey did not comply with this obligation.
  7. [87]
    Separately, having advised MNH about the charges albeit many months later, Mr Harvey was requested to provide a written update to Mr King providing details about any outcomes in relation to the charges.  I accept on the materials before the Commission that Mr Harvey did not provide MNH with an update. Instead, it was necessary for MNH to contact QPP to obtain information about the charges.
  8. [88]
    In circumstances where it seems QPP eventually discontinued the criminal proceedings against Mr Harvey, he argues the substantiation of Allegation Two is unfair and unreasonable in circumstances where there is no longer a charge.
  9. [89]
    The difficulty with this approach is that it disregards Mr Harvey's obligations in s 73 of the PS Act and HR Policy E4 which clearly require an employee to disclose when they have been charged. There is nothing within s 73 of the PS Act or HR Policy E4 which states the obligation on an employee to disclose disappears in the event QPP decides not to pursue the charges at a later time.
  10. [90]
    For the reasons given above, I do not accept Mr Harvey's explanation of his conduct in respect of Allegation Two. I am satisfied it was open to Ms Nasato to conclude Mr Harvey failed to comply with:
  • HR Policy E4 (QH-POL-127) Employees to notify supervisor if charged or convicted of an indictable offence; and
  • the Code of Conduct for the Public Service, Principle 1.5 Demonstrate a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct, specifically complying with legislative and/or policy obligations to report employee criminal charges and convictions.

Conclusion

  1. [91]
    I am satisfied Mr Harvey engaged in the conduct the subject of the two allegations, and in doing so, contravened the PS Act, the Code and HR Policy E4.
  2. [92]
    For the reasons given above, I consider the decision was fair and reasonable.
  3. [93]
    I order accordingly.

Order

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022.

[2] Ibid, Attachment KH-03.

[3] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 134.

[4] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2); Goodall v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 319.

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

[6] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022.

[7] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 132; Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 195.

[8] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment KH-03.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid, Attachment KH-02.

[11] Ibid, Attachment KH-03.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] I note this act has since been repealed and replaced with the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), the relevant sections are ss 90, 93, 324.

[16] Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service, published 1 January 2011.

[17] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 181; Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 73.

[18] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment KH-03.

[19] Ibid, Attachment KH-02. 

[20] Ibid, Attachment KH-03.

[21] Ibid, Attachment KH-03 8-10.

[22] Ibid, Attachment KH-03 9.

[23] Ibid 10.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid 10-11.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid 11-12.

[34] Ibid 11.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid 12.

[37] Ibid; HR Policy E4 - Employees to notify supervisor if charged with or convicted of an indictable offence.

[38] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment KH-03; Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service, published 1 January 2011.

[39] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment 1 [11], [14].

[40] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment KH-01 4-5.

[41] Ibid, Attachment KH-01 5-6.

[42] The Department's submissions filed 1 February 2023, Attachment A - Attachment 8, l 42.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] The Department's submissions filed 1 February 2023, Attachment A - Attachment 9, ll 105-123.

[46] Ibid l 82 (emphasis added).

[47] The Department's submissions file 1 February 2023, Attachment A - Attachment 5.

[48] Ibid.

[49] The Department's submissions file 1 February 2023, Attachment A - Attachment 6.

[50] Ibid.

[51] The Department's submissions file 1 February 2023, Attachment A - Attachment 7.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Video footage filed by the Department on 16 March 2023 and 22 March 2023.

[54] Mr A Ryan's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.36hrs]-[21.44hrs]; Mr J Nahrung's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.28hrs]-[21.44hrs].

[55] Mr W Clavarino's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.50hrs]-[21.58hrs]; Mr J Nahrung's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.49hrs]-[21.52hrs].

[56] Mr A Ryan's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.50hrs]-[21.58hrs]; Mr W Clavarino's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.50hrs]-[21.58hrs]; Mr K Harvey's video footage filed on 16 March 2023 [21.58]-[22.02].

[57] Mr K Harvey's video footage filed on 16 March 2023 [21.58]-[22.02].

[58] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment 1 [11]; Mr Harvey's reply submissions filed 6 April 2023 [5].

[59] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment 1 [9].

[60] Ibid [11].

[61] Ibid [12].

[62] The Department's submissions filed 1 February 2023 [12.1.1].

[63] Ibid [12.2.1].

[64] Ibid [12.2].

[65] Ibid [12.2.2].

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Mr Harvey's reply submissions filed 6 April 2023 [5.c].

[69] Ibid [4].

[70] Ibid [5.a].

[71] Ibid [5.b].

[72] Ibid [5].

[73] Ibid [5.f].

[74] Appeal notice filed 29 November 2022, Attachment 1 [14]; Mr Harvey's reply submissions filed [8].

[75] The Department's submissions filed 1 February 2023 [12.3].

[76] Mr K Harvey's video footage filed on 16 March 2023 [21.58]-[22.02].

[77] Mr A Ryan's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.36hrs]-[21.44hrs]; Mr J Nahrung's video footage filed on 22 March 2023 [21.28hrs]-[21.44hrs].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Harvey v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 193

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    26 Jun 2023

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

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.