Police Act 1990

The provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 apply to an application for a review under this Division in the same way as they apply to an application under Part 6 (Unfair dismissals) of Chapter 2 of that Act, subject to this Division and to the following modifications—

section 83 (Application of Part) is to be read as if subsection (3) were omitted,

section 85 (Time for making applications) is to be read—

as if a reference to 21 days in that section were instead a reference to 14 days, starting from the day on which the applicant is given a copy of the order to which the application relates, and

as if subsection (3) were omitted,

section 86 (Conciliation of applications) is to be read as if it provided that a judicial member of the Commission who is involved in any endeavour to settle the applicant’s claim by conciliation must not subsequently be involved in the conduct of proceedings on the review,

section 89 is to be read as if subsection (7) (Threat of dismissal) were omitted,

section 162 (Procedure generally) is to be read as if the requirement of subsection (2) (a) of that section that the Commission is to act as quickly as is practicable were instead a requirement for the Commission to commence hearing the application within 4 weeks after the application is made,

section 163 (Rules of evidence and legal formality) is to be read as if it provided that new evidence may not be adduced before the Commission unless—

notice of intention to do so, and of the substance of the new evidence, has been given in accordance with the regulations under this Act, or

the Commission gives leave.

The Commission may grant leave as referred to in subsection (1) (f) (ii) in such circumstances as it thinks fit and having regard to the nature of proceedings under section 181F, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Commission must grant leave in the following circumstances—

where the Commission is satisfied that there is a real probability that the applicant may be able to show that the Commissioner has acted upon wrong or mistaken information,

where the Commission is satisfied that there is cogent evidence to suggest that the information before the Commissioner was unreliable, having been placed before the Commissioner maliciously, fraudulently or vexatiously,

where the Commission is satisfied that the new evidence might materially have affected the Commissioner’s decision.