Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 65 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QSC 228

PARTIES:

PETER DAMIEN CARNE

(applicant)

v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 10786 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 April 2021, further written submissions received on 1 September 2021

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDERS:

1.   Application dismissed.

2.   The parties will be heard on the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT - THE LEGISLATURE - GENERAL MATTERS - PRIVILEGES - PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS - where the Crime and Corruption Commission undertook an investigation into the applicant - where a report was produced - where the report was presented to the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commission - where the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commission is a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland - where the applicant challenged aspects of the report - whether the preparation of the report was part of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland - whether parliamentary privilege and immunity attached to the preparation of the report - whether the applicant seeks to question or impeach the proceedings

STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - where the Crime and Corruption Commission prepared a report purportedly under s 64 and s 69 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 - where the report was delivered to the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commission - where the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commission is a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland - where the applicant argued that parliamentary privilege did not attach to the report unless it was a “report” for the purposes of s 64 and s 69 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 - whether on a proper construction of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 the report was a “report” - where a provision of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 bestowed parliamentary privilege on a report in certain circumstances - whether that section impliedly restricted privilege which may otherwise arise

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14A, s 14B
Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), s 40A
Constitution of Queensland Act 2001, s 8
Crime and Corruption Act 2001, s 4, s 5, s 7, s 9, s 10, s 12, s 15, s 22, s 33, s 34, s 35, s 45, s 46, s 46A, s 49, s 64, s 65, s 66, s 69, s 176, s 177, s 220, s 223, s 291, s 292, s 332, s 334
Crime Commission Act 1997 (repealed)
Criminal Code, s 408C
Criminal Justice Act 1989 (repealed), s 2.14
Crime and Misconduct Bill 2001
Judicial Review Act 1991
Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, s 8, s 9, s 55
Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (UK)
Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 (Cth)
Parliamentary Papers Act 1992 (repealed), s 3, s 9, s 13
Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 15, s 16
Public Interest…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] QSC 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Carne v Crime and Corruption Commission, the applicant, Mr Carne, sought various legal remedies in relation to a report produced by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) and the actions of the CCC in requesting that the report be presented to the Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Commission (PCCC). The PCCC is a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the preparation of the report was part of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, whether parliamentary privilege and immunity attached to the preparation of the report, and whether the applicant's actions sought to question or impeach the proceedings.

The court held that the report of the CCC was a document that qualified as a "report" under section 69(1) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 if the PCCC directed the Commission to give the report to the Speaker. The preparation of the report and the resolution of the CCC to seek a direction from the PCCC pursuant to section 69 were proceedings of the Parliament. The applicant's application sought to impeach or question those proceedings, which was contrary to section 8 of the Parliamentary Oaths and Privileges Act 1987 (POQ Act). Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the parties were heard on the question of costs.

The court's decision was based on the premise that the report was part of the proceedings of the Assembly, and Mr Carne's application was not justiciable. The court also found that the applicant's actions sought to impeach or question the proceedings, which was in violation of the POQ Act. The court held that the application must be dismissed, and the matter was referred to determine the costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. The parties will be heard on the question of costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Carne seeks various relief in relation to the report and the CCC’s actions in requesting the PCCC to direct that the report be given to the Speaker.Background The position of the Public Trustee and the office of the Public Trust Office are established by ss 7 and 8 of the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Public Trustee Act). As its name suggests, the Public Trustee functions as trustee in various capacities and exercises various powers conferred by the Public Trustee Act. Mr Carne was appointed as the Public Trustee pursuant to s 9 of the Public Trustee Act. He held that position from March 2009 until March 2014 and then again from March 2016 until 31 July 2020 when his resignation became effective. The CC Act is an Act of the Queensland Parliament whose objects are:“4 Act’s purposes(1)The main purposes of this Act are—(a) to combat and reduce the incidence of major crime; and(b) to continuously improve the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of corruption in, the public sector. …” Section 220 of the CC Act establishes the office of the CCC as a body corporate being an amalgamation of the Crime and Justice Commission which was established under the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (the CJ Act) and the Queensland Crime Commission which was established under the Crime Commission Act 1997. The CCC consists of various persons,[2] including a chairperson.[3] At all times material to the current dispute, Mr Alan MacSporran QC held the position of chairman of the CCC.[2]Section 223.[3]Chapter 6, Division 2, subdivision 1. Part 3 of the CC Act establishes the PCCC as a committee of the Queensland Parliament.[4] It has various functions[5] and powers,[6] but its primary function is to oversee the CCC and to report to Parliament.[7][4]Section 291.[5]Section 292.[6]Chapter 6, Part 3, Division 2.[7]Section 292. In June 2018, an anonymous person (the informant) claiming to be an employee of the Public Trust Office alleged to the CCC that Mr Carne had been involved in corrupt conduct and was guilty of maladministration. The informant asserted that the delivery of the information to the CCC constituted a “public interest disclosure” for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (the PID Act). An informant making a public interest disclosure attracts various protections under the PID Act.[8][8]Public Interest Disclosure Act, Chapter 4. Further correspondence from the informant was received by the CCC in August 2018 and a corruption investigation[9] was commenced by the CCC in September 2018.[9]Crime and Corruption Act 2001, Chapter 2, Part 3. In June 2019, Mr Carne was suspended from his office as the Public Trustee of Queensland after details of the complaint had come to the attention of the Attorney-General. On 17 June 2019, a police officer seconded to the CCC sent an email to Mr Carne the effect of which was to:1.alert Mr Carne to the fact that the CCC was undertaking an investigation into his conduct;2.inform Mr Carne that some allegations raised the possibility that criminal conduct had occurred;3.give Mr Carne some limited details of the allegations including that it was alleged that there had been improper use of Public Trustee Office resources to fund personal study by Mr Carne;4.invite Mr Carne to participate in two interviews with the police, namely:(a)“a formal disciplinary interview”; and(b)“a separate criminal interview” into the suggestion that the use of Public Trustee Office funds for private study constituted criminal fraud.[10][10]Criminal Code, s 408C.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As the report is part of the proceedings of the Assembly, Mr Carne’s added ground is not justiciable. Conclusions The report of the CCC is a document which is a “report” for the purposes of s 69(1) of the CC Act if the PCCC directs the Commission to give the report to the Speaker. The preparation of the report and the resolution of the CCC to seek a direction from the PCCC pursuant to s 69 are proceedings of the Parliament. Mr Carne’s application seeks to impeach or question those proceedings contrary to s 8 of the POQ Act. The application must be dismissed and the parties heard on the question of costs. Orders:1.Application dismissed.2.The parties will be heard on the question of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.