A Superintendent demoted for unauthorised access to the Queensland Police Service’s computer database has lost his review of the sanction.
Now-retired Brisbane officer Lance Vercoe challenged the finding of misconduct made by the Deputy Commissioner, with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) decision delivered on 4 February substantiating the ruling and confirming the sanction.
In January 2021, Mr Vercoe was given a Disciplinary Proceedings Notice relating to “unauthorised success to information stored on Service databases”, specifically Queensland Police Service’s QPRIME system.
It was alleged the access was unrelated to his official police duties and there was a conflict of interest between his personal interest and the impartial fulfilment of official duties and responsibilities.
The notice related to four instances between 1 September 2019 and 15 January 2020 when Mr Vercoe accessed the system:
- twice to undertake searches of his rental property after being notified by the tenant that police had attended in relation to a domestic violence matter;
- seven times to provide updates to a friend whose bicycle had been stolen;
- three times to obtain information about himself relating to incidents in 2014 and 1993; and
- for information about the theft of personal property from his rental property.
In March 2021, he responded to the notice contending the access was within the ambit of his duties as a police officer and there was no conflict of interest.
In June 2021, Deputy Commissioner found the allegations to be substantiated, indicated to Mr Vercoe he was considering a sanction of demotion from Superintendent to Inspector, and invited submissions.
In August 2021, Mr Vercoe was demoted, with the demotion suspended after six months conditional upon no further misconduct.
In September 2021, he filed an application to review, and later that month retired compulsorily.
The Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) definition of misconduct means conduct that:
(a) is disgraceful, improper or unbecoming an officer; or
(b) shows unfitness to be or continue as an officer; or
(c) does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer.
At the time of the first access incident, Mr Vercoe was attached to the Security and Counter Terrorism Command, not assigned to general police duties and had no official involvement with the domestic violence incident at his property.
The Deputy Commissioner had rejected Mr Vercoe’s contention that he had a duty as a police officer to obtain the full facts about the incident at his rental property, and in QCAT, Member Oliver found no error in this decision.
He also found no error in relation to a finding of misconduct regarding the QPRIME access for information about the stolen bicycle, and for updates on the investigation into his stolen property.
However, he concluded Mr Vercoe’s conduct in the search for information about himself took on a “somewhat different character when considering the definition of misconduct”.
“The reason for the search is always relevant but if it does not relate to a third party, and is solely related one’s work history, it is difficult to see how the conduct could be characterised as disgraceful, improper or unbecoming an officer; or shows unfitness to be or continue as an officer; or does not meet the standard of conduct the community reasonably expects of a police officer,” he said.
“The Deputy Commissioner is obviously correct in concluding that the checks were unrelated to the performance of his police duties but rather for personal reasons or possibly curiosity. But that does not mean, ipso facto, that it was misconduct as defined.”
Member Oliver found the conduct did not amount to misconduct but likely fell within Section 7.4(e) of the Act related to grounds for disciplinary action against an officer, and so the Deputy Commissioner was in error.
“It would seem to me that for the conduct of accessing QPRIME to amount to misconduct it is necessary to consider it in two parts,” he said.
“Firstly, there needs to be proof of an officer accessing the system and conducting a search on a matter unrelated to the officer’s duties. That aspect of the conduct has been established by the applicant’s own admission.
“Secondly, it is necessary to then consider the subject matter of the search to determine whether the definition is satisfied.”
Member Oliver found there was no basis to disturb the Deputy Commissioner’s findings in relation to conflict of interest because Mr Vercoe “clearly had, at the very least, an apparent interest in the outcome of the investigations”, save for searches related to his own personal matters.
In relation to sanction, Member Oliver noted the sanctions were imposed after proper consideration of factors including Mr Vercoe’s 40 years of service; his leadership responsibilities and experience; his knowledge of the importance of information privacy and security; and his otherwise good service record.
He concluded there had been no error in the exercise of the discretion, and confirmed the sanction.
Share this article