Summary
The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a police officer after a departmental enquiry. The Tribunal and High Court had improperly reassessed witness discrepancies and relied on the criminal acquittal to overturn the disciplinary findings. Judicial review examines legality and fairness of the decision-making process, rather than conducting an appeal on evidentiary sufficiency. The findings here rested on evidence and were not shown to be perverse or unsupported.
Issues
- Whether judicial-review forums exceeded their authority in reassessing the disciplinary evidence.
- Whether the criminal acquittal and witness discrepancies justified interference with dismissal.
Held
- Judicial review of disciplinary action does not permit appellate reappraisal of evidence. Competence, prescribed procedure, natural justice, absence of evidence, perversity and comparable legal defects remain reviewable; adequacy or reliability of accepted evidence ordinarily does not. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13)
- Criminal and disciplinary proceedings apply different standards of proof. Acquittal on the same factual allegations did not itself invalidate the departmental findings or justify substituting the reviewing forums’ evidentiary assessment. (¶¶ 5, 11, 14, 15)
- The enquiry officer evaluated the evidence and the disciplinary and appellate authorities accepted the misconduct findings. Discrepancies did not turn the case into one of no evidence, and no perversity was established. The Tribunal and High Court therefore exceeded judicial-review limits. (¶¶ 6, 14, 15)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; Tribunal and High Court orders set aside and disciplinary punishment of dismissal restored.