## Facts

- Troy Brook Quinn, an Australian Army officer, was charged under Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) § 34 with ill-treatment of an inferior officer, Lieutenant David Steven Good.
- The charge arose from an infantry “capture” training exercise in Kulim, Malaysia, on or about 4 March 1998, in which Good was treated as a captured platoon commander.
- The prosecution alleged Quinn permitted and required measures including: a pillowcase placed over Good’s head; adhesive tape placed over the pillowcase and around Good’s head and over his eyes; the covering and tape left in place for about 15 hours; Good’s wrists bound; Good kept standing, kneeling, or crouching with head bowed; interrogation by personnel under Quinn’s command; and denial of food.
- Evidence included that the activity occurred in a supervised training setting, a medic was present, and Good did not suffer serious or lasting physical injury.
- A Defence Force Magistrate convicted Quinn and imposed a penalty, reasoning the conduct was inappropriate training and amounted to “ill-treatment” under § 34.
- Quinn appealed to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal against conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether, in the context of an authorized military training exercise, the treatment of Lt Good met the statutory meaning of “ill-treats” under Defence Force Discipline Act § 34.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the required mental element for the § 34 offence beyond reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
- The Tribunal quashed the conviction and set aside the penalty.
- The Tribunal held the prosecution failed to establish that Quinn’s conduct constituted “ill-treatment” within the meaning of § 34 in the training context.
- The Tribunal also held the necessary fault element for the offence was not proved.

## Legal Principles

- “Ill-treats” in § 34 is assessed in context; rigorous or unpleasant conditions in military training do not automatically amount to criminal ill-treatment.
- The objective character of the conduct (including harshness and proportionality) must be evaluated against the legitimate purposes and conditions of military training.
- Absent clear legislative displacement, a disciplinary offence framed in terms such as “ill-treats” requires proof of a fault element; liability is not established merely by showing the subordinate experienced discomfort.
- Where the evidence supports a bona fide training purpose, supervision/safeguards, and lacks proof of intent to abuse or knowingly impose unlawful treatment, reasonable doubt may remain as to both the statutory threshold of “ill-treatment” and the accused’s fault element.

## Conclusion

The Tribunal set aside Quinn’s conviction because the “capture” exercise, though unpleasant and prolonged, was not proved to be “ill-treatment” under the statutory standard when assessed in its military-training context, and because the prosecution failed to prove the required mental element beyond reasonable doubt.


Quinn v. Chief of Army, [2001] A.D.F.D.A.T. 4 (Def. Force Discipline App. Trib. 2001)