Queensland Police Service Declined to Discipline Officer Over Domestic Violence Allegations
A Queensland police officer was accused of committing multiple serious acts of domestic violence against his heavily pregnant partner and interfering with the course of justice to weaken the terms of her protection order. Despite these grave allegations, the Queensland Police Service (QPS) refused to pursue disciplinary action against the officer, a decision that has now been overturned by a tribunal.
Tribunal Overturns QPS Decision on Disciplinary Investigation
The circumstances of the case were revealed in a Queensland tribunal judgment this month, which prompted a legal challenge by the state's Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC). The tribunal found that the QPS erred in its handling of the matter and ordered them to instigate a belated disciplinary investigation against the officer. This officer was stood down on full pay in 2022 due to the allegations and left the QPS in 2023 after being declared medically unfit.
Police decided last year that there was "no tangible benefit" to conducting disciplinary action against the officer, who also faces four criminal charges related to alleged domestic violence offending. Consequently, they opted not to investigate internally. The Queensland Public Service Administration Act contains discretionary powers that allow police officers to be subject to internal disciplinary proceedings after they have left the QPS, but in practice, these powers are rarely used.
Serious Allegations and Failed Accountability
The tribunal found that the QPS "failed to give sufficient weight and consideration to the conduct" of the officer, which occurred over a protracted period. The allegations included multiple acts of physical violence upon the former officer's heavily pregnant ex-partner, posing a serious risk to not only her but also her unborn child. Additionally, there were allegations of repeated violations of the law and ongoing disobedience to lawful authority, including threats to kill and cause harm.
The tribunal also noted that the former officer's alleged interference in the course of justice was premeditated and involved a significant degree of coercion. "This conduct ultimately resulted in conditions under a Temporary Protection Order being relaxed and placing the aggrieved at risk," the judgment stated.
Criticism of Decision-Making Process
The CCC argued, and the tribunal agreed, that the decision-maker, Acting Detective Supt Christopher Hansel, failed to properly consider the seriousness of the grounds for disciplinary action. In his initial decision, Hansel ruled there was "no tangible benefit in having these matters investigated where the matters are still continuing through the court's process." The tribunal said this conclusion was "misconceived and not supported by the evidence" before Hansel when he made the decision.
"Regardless of the outcome of the court process, the benefit to the QPS would be that the former officer's conduct would be properly assessed internally within the QPS and, if found liable for disciplinary action, a disciplinary declaration would have been made," the tribunal said. "[Hansel's] decision means that the former officer would escape that process."
Broader Implications for Public Confidence
The CCC also argued that a disciplinary investigation would have conveyed a broader benefit by the QPS maintaining public confidence in its handling of serious disciplinary allegations of this nature. This case highlights ongoing concerns about police accountability, particularly in domestic violence matters. Last month, the QPS announced it would scrap its specialist domestic and family violence command, with senior officers arguing that the service had addressed cultural failings highlighted by a 2022 inquiry into police responses to such violence.
The 2022 inquiry heard cases where internal disciplinary processes into allegations of serious misconduct were not finalised because officers resigned or retired, underscoring systemic issues in police oversight. This recent tribunal ruling reinforces the need for robust disciplinary mechanisms to ensure justice and uphold public trust in law enforcement agencies.
