Police lawyer’s misconduct a risk to investigation, tribunal says

The contravention concerned Thomas’ decision in January 2024 to permit a detective senior constable (DSC) to witness and sign an affidavit that would be used to support an application before the then-Federal Circuit Court for three telephone interception warrants.

The DSC was told to cross out “Justice of the Peace”, which indicated he was a lawyer. At the time, he only recently commenced practical legal training at the Crime and Intelligence Legal Service.

The QPS decision-maker said that while Thomas’ misconduct did not reach the threshold of misconduct, her actions “were careless and incompetent and failed to comply with your obligation to ensure diligence in public administration”, as required under the code.

The affidavit mishap came to light last April, and the lawfulness of the intercepted telephone communications was thrown into doubt.

On appeal before the QIRC, Thomas said the decision-maker failed to consider relevant evidence, placed undue weight on certain evidence, erred in finding the allegation was substantiated, and should not have made a finding the conduct amounted to a ground of discipline.

VIEW ALL

While Thomas admitted to permitting the DSC to witness the affidavit, she said this was not a deliberate act, she did not consider his qualifications at the time, and it was not fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to find she was acting in a supervisory capacity.

On the former, Thomas submitted she was multitasking at the time and had been experiencing stressful personal circumstances, which was why she had not turned her mind to the DSC’s qualifications.

However, industrial commissioner Sam Pidgeon said the decision-maker took these circumstances into account and found she was not deliberate, but it was not enough to establish a reasonable excuse.

On the supervisory issue, Pidgeon accepted Thomas was not the DSC’s supervisor for the purpose of his placement, but it was uncontroversial he was invited to accompany her that day.

While the DSC carries some responsibility for his own signing of the document, he was on his third day of placement, and Thomas “was significantly the more experienced and qualified of the two”.

“I find that it was open to the decision-maker to determine that any fault on the part of [the DSC] did not outweigh the responsibility on Thomas to ensure the affidavit was being signed by a qualified person,” Pidgeon determined in her written reasons.

Thomas also made a submission that she was disadvantaged in establishing her reasonable excuse for the conduct because she was directed not to discuss the matter with colleagues or people who may have relevant information, but this was rejected.

Pidgeon was also critical of Thomas’ submission the decision-maker failed to inquire about the “eventual impact” of the incorrectly signed affidavit, which resulted in an “unreasonable exercise of his power”.

“Such a submission overlooks that her conduct created a risk that in the event the ‘targets’ were going to be prosecuted, information with evidential value may be precluded,” Pidgeon said.

“Not only did the conduct have the capacity to undermine the results of the investigation, it also led to the need for the relevant authorities to be informed of the inappropriately witnessed affidavits.

“This is what gave rise to potential embarrassment and the reputational damage the decision-maker refers to in his reasons for decision.”

At the time the judgment was published, no decision on what disciplinary action to impose had been made.

The case: Thomas v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2025] QIRC 153