Grant Hilton Wright and Commissioner of Police [2015] NSWIRComm 1016

Grant Hilton Wright and Commissioner of Police [2015] NSWIRComm 1016

The Commission found that the applicant failed to comply with two separate lawful and reasonable directions (to attend duty as rostered in December 2011 and to replace his appointments belt in May 2012). The disciplinary process followed was fair and without evidence of bias or conflict of interest. Operational and public interest justified the refusal of leave and disciplinary transfer. The transfer was not beyond power, nor was it harsh, unreasonable or unjust in all the circumstances. The application failed as the applicant could not discharge his burden under s 175(2) of the Police Act 1990.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under S 174 Police Act 1990 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['disciplinary Transfer' 'misconduct' 'procedural Fairness' 'orders of Commissioner of Police' 'carer Responsibilities' 'discrimination' 'compliance With Lawful Orders' 'public Interest Vs Private Interest']
['industrial Relations' 'police Law'] ['disciplinary Transfer' 'misconduct' 'procedural Fairness' 'orders of Commissioner of Police' 'carer Responsibilities' 'discrimination' 'compliance With Lawful Orders' 'public Interest Vs Private Interest']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review Under S 174 Police Act 1990 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the disciplinary transfer order under s 173 was beyond power, harsh, unreasonable or unjust' "Whether the applicant's conduct constituted misconduct justifying disciplinary action" 'Whether there was procedural unfairness or bias in the process' 'Whether there was indirect discrimination on account of carer responsibilities or disability']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the applicant failed to comply with two separate lawful and reasonable directions (to attend duty as rostered in December 2011 and to replace his appointments belt in May 2012). The disciplinary process followed was fair and without evidence of bias or conflict of interest. Operational and public interest justified the refusal of leave and disciplinary transfer. The transfer was not beyond power, nor was it harsh, unreasonable or unjust in all the circumstances. The application failed as the applicant could not discharge his burden under s 175(2) of the Police Act 1990.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for review under s 174 of the Act is dismissed pursuant to s 177(1)(d) of the Act.']