Accused A v Callanan

Case [2009] QSC 12

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Accused A & Ors v Callanan & Ors [2009] QSC 12

PARTIES:

ACCUSED A

First Applicant

WITNESS V

Second Applicant

WITNESS T

Third Applicant

WITNESS P

Fourth Applicant

WITNESS C

Fifth Applicant

WITNESS R

Sixth Applicant

V

JOHN DAVID CALLANAN, ROBERT NEEDHAM, ROSS BARNETT, ELIZABETH FRASER, JOHANNA BAKERMANS, DIANNA JOHNSTON AS MEMBERS OF THE CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE

First Respondent

JOHN DAVID CALLANAN

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BS 13170 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for statutory order to review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2009

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

1.          The decisions referred to in the Application for  a Statutory Order of Review filed 17 December 2008 be set aside.

2.          The respondents pay the applicants’ cost of and incidental to these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where the applicants seek judicial review of a decision to refer a suspected murder to the Crime and Misconduct Commission – where the police investigation was said to have gathered a strong case and the first applicant had been prosecuted for murder – whether the committee could have been satisfied that the police investigation had ‘not been effective’ – whether the Committee could have been satisfied that it was in the public interest to refer the matter – the meaning of ‘the public interest’ in s 28(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) – whether the Crime Reference Committee adopted an erroneous interpretation of ‘the public interest’

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – whether the Crime Reference Committee adopted an erroneous interpretation of ‘the public interest’ – whether the decision not authorised

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where there was no satisfactory evidence that the Crime Reference Committee took account of considerations that did not favour a decision to refer

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – UNREASONABLENESS – where various considerations did not favour a decision to refer – whether the decision of the Committee was so unreasonable that no reasonable Committee could exercise the power to refer

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 5

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s 4(1)(a), s 7, s 26(b)(i), s 27, s 28, s28(2), s 29, s 30, s 31, s 82, s 176, s177(1), s 178(3), s 183, s 190, s 197, s 202, s 220, s 269, s 274, s 275, s 278, s 331, Schedule 2

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 13, s 20, s 20(2)(d), s 20(2)(e), s 20(2)(f), s 23(b), s 23(g)

Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld), s 4(3)(f)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Art 14.3

Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562, cited

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB…

Continue reading Accused A v Callanan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Accused A v Callanan [2009] QSC 12
Case
[2009] QSC 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in Accused A v Callanan sought judicial review of a decision by the Crime Reference Committee, which had decided not to refer a suspected murder case to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The applicants argued that the committee had erred in its decision, specifically in its interpretation of the public interest and the effectiveness of the police investigation. The applicants also argued that the committee had failed to consider relevant factors that did not favour a referral to the commission.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Crime Reference Committee had adopted an erroneous interpretation of the term 'public interest' as defined in section 28(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) and whether the committee's decision was unreasonable given the various considerations that did not favour a referral. The applicants further argued that the committee's decision was not authorised due to a lack of satisfactory evidence that the committee had taken account of considerations that did not favour a referral.

The court held that the Crime Reference Committee had indeed adopted an erroneous interpretation of the term 'public interest'. The court found that the committee's decision was unreasonable, as there were various considerations that did not favour a referral, and the decision not to refer was not one that a reasonable committee could have made. The court also found that the decision was not authorised due to the lack of satisfactory evidence that the committee had taken account of relevant considerations that did not favour a referral.

The court set aside the decisions referred to in the application for a statutory order of review and ordered that the respondents pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decisions referred to in the Application for a Statutory Order of Review filed 17 December 2008 be set aside.

2. The respondents pay the applicants’ cost of and incidental to these proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.