Callanan v Witness M

In the case of Callanan v Witness M, the respondent was required to give evidence before a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing in Queensland. The respondent refused to answer questions and claimed a "reasonable excuse" under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), citing potential endangerment to his and his family's safety if he answered questions about the subject matter of the investigation. The court had to decide whether the onus of proving a "reasonable excuse" rested with the respondent and whether there was a "reasonable excuse" within the meaning of s 190 of the Act for the respondent’s refusal to answer questions. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the respondent's refusal to answer questions constituted contempt of the presiding officer.

The court concluded that the onus of proving a "reasonable excuse" for refusing to answer questions rested with the respondent. It found that the respondent did not discharge this onus. The court emphasised that the respondent had not provided any evidence to substantiate his claims of potential harm to himself or his family if he answered the questions. The court noted that the respondent had not offered any details regarding the nature of the threats or the source of the information leading him to believe that his safety would be endangered. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the respondent had not provided any corroborating evidence or testimony from witnesses who could attest to the threats. Consequently, the court held that the respondent's assertions were speculative and unsubstantiated, and therefore, did not constitute a "reasonable excuse" under s 190 of the Act.

As a result, the court found that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer. It ordered that the respondent be punished for contempt pursuant to s 199 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The court's decision underscores the importance of providing concrete and substantiated evidence when claiming a "reasonable excuse" for not answering questions in an investigative hearing. The court's ruling also reinforces the principle that investigative hearings must proceed without undue interference to ensure the effective administration of justice.