Callanan v Attendee Z

Case [2013] QSC 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Callanan v Attendee Z [2013] QSC 342

PARTIES:

JOHN DAVID CALLANAN
(applicant)
v
ATTENDEE Z
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 11512 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 December 2013

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

1.   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer in that he refused to take an oath in the circumstances stated in the Certificate of Contempt of the applicant dated 28 November 2013;

2.   I order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of 42 days from 12 December 2013;

3.   I direct that the originating application, the Certificate of Contempt, the affidavits filed herein, the outlines of submissions and any exhibits be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt – where the Crime and Misconduct Commission was authorised to hold investigative hearings in relation to criminal activity – where respondent was required to attend hearing – where respondent failed to take the oath – where the applicant issued a certificate of contempt against the respondent pursuant to s 199(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act – where contempt not contested and is proven – where legislation mandates that the Court must punish the person in contempt by imprisonment to be served wholly in a corrective services facility – assessment of appropriate term of imprisonment - whether the term of imprisonment to be imposed on the respondent  will be served in solitary confinement – whether the punishment should take account of the fact that imprisonment will be served in solitary confinement

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s55A, s176, s198, s199

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission (2012) 220 A Crim R 372, cited
Callanan v F, Byrne SJA, unreported 16 February 2010, considered
Callanan v Witness J, unreported, Dalton J, 19 November 2013, considered
O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, considered
R v Abbott unreported, Court of Appeal CA No 344 of 1998, 13 April 1999, cited
R v Brady (2005) 92 SASR 135, cited
R v Guthorie [2002] QCA 509, cited
R v Phillips and Wallgrove [2008] QCA 284, cited
R v Allingham, Landsdowne, Marshall and Booth [1994] QCA 433, cited
R v Pope; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1996] QCA 318, cited
R v RAL [2012] QCA 34, cited
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, considered
York v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 466, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
D H James for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Official Solicitor, Crime and Misconduct Commission for the applicant
Bell Miller Lawyers for the…

Continue reading Callanan v Attendee Z

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Callanan v Attendee Z [2013] QSC 342
Case
[2013] QSC 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Callanan v Attendee Z, the respondent, who was required to attend an investigative hearing conducted by the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland, was found in contempt for refusing to take an oath during the proceedings. The applicant, acting on behalf of the Commission, sought an order for the respondent to be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Magistrates Court and to determine matters of law.

The court was required to decide whether the respondent was indeed in contempt of the presiding officer, as certified by the applicant, and if so, what the appropriate term of imprisonment should be. The legislation in question mandated that the court must punish the person in contempt by imprisonment to be served wholly in a corrective services facility. The court also had to consider whether the punishment should take account of the fact that the imprisonment would be served in solitary confinement.

The court found that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer beyond reasonable doubt, as he refused to take the oath in the circumstances stated in the Certificate of Contempt. The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment, considering the seriousness of the contempt and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Ultimately, the court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of 42 days from 12 December 2013. The court also directed that the originating application, the Certificate of Contempt, the affidavits filed, the outlines of submissions, and any exhibits be placed in an envelope, sealed, and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer in that he refused to take an oath in the circumstances stated in the Certificate of Contempt of the applicant dated 28 November 2013;

2. I order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of 42 days from 12 December 2013;

3. I direct that the originating application, the Certificate of Contempt, the affidavits filed herein, the outlines of submissions and any exhibits be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court.

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.