Chen & Anor v Diggle - [1999] QSC 181

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
No. 4650 of 1999
Before Mr Justice Ambrose
[Chen & Anor v Diggle]
BETWEEN: YUNG CHUAN CHEN

Applicant

AND: COMANS ASM

First Respondent

AND: JOHN ROBERT DIGGLE

Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - B.W. AMBROSE J.

Delivered the 6th day of August 1999

On 2 August 1999 I dismissed the applicant’s application to judicially review the decision of a stipendiary magistrate on 7 May 1999 to commit the applicant for trial in the District Court at Brisbane at its sittings commencing 1 June 1999 upon a number of criminal offences. In fact on 30 July 1999 an indictment was presented in the District Court at Brisbane containing four counts. In view of the matters raised and argued I intimated that I would deliver written reasons which I now do.
It is convenient to set forth the rather unusual circumstances of this application.
On 21 May 1999 the applicant applied to review the decision of Mr Comans ASM of 7 May 1999 to commit him for trial on charges upon which he has subsequently been indicted.
No affidavits have been filed as to what occurred in the course of the committal proceedings, however counsel for the applicant observed in the course of his submissions on the first day:-
“The Magistrate made a decision after a four day voir dire that a confession ought be allowed in. In making the decision he found that there were four counts which could have been interpreted as being an inducement or a threat. Plotzki which is a Court of Appeal decision says there is no room for niceties. If it could have amounted to that then it must be thrown out.”
It is unclear to me upon what basis the magistrate was persuaded to conduct a four day voir dire to determine the voluntariness of an alleged confession upon a committal proceedings.
The reference to the Court of Appeal decision in Plotzki appears to be to R v Plotzki [1972] Qd R 379 a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ruling of a trial judge on a voir dire that the effect of an inducement leading to a confession had dissipated by the time a second confession was made 15 to 20 hours later. At 384-385 observations are made relating generally to the principles to be applied in determining upon a voir dire the application of s.10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894. I find those observations of little assistance in determining the critical issue upon this application.
Without attempting to analyze the content of the application for review (as amended) I will simply record them:
“Applicant:                  YUNG CHUAN CHEN
AND
First Respondent:         COMANS ASM
Second Respondent:    JOHN ROBERT DIGGLE
Application to review the decision of His Worship Comans ASM on 7 May 1999:-
1.That a confessional statement obtained from the Applicant was admissible in the circumstances in which it was allegedly obtained.
2.That Comans ASM wrongly applied or failed to apply…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chen & Anor v Diggle

Details

AGLC: Chen v Diggle [1999] QSC 181
Case: [1999] QSC 181
Decision Date: 6 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yung Chuan Chen sought to judicially review the decision of a stipendiary magistrate to commit him for trial on multiple criminal charges, including the admissibility of a confession. Chen argued that the magistrate erred in not excluding the confession based on the alleged inducement by threats. The court dismissed Chen's application for review.

The primary legal issue was whether the decision of a stipendiary magistrate to commit for trial was reviewable under the Judicial Review Act 1991. Chen contended that the magistrate failed to properly apply the law in excluding the confession, which was allegedly obtained through threats or inducements.

The court found that the function of a stipendiary magistrate in committal proceedings is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, as outlined in the Justices Act 1886. The court emphasized that it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to review the admissibility of evidence in committal proceedings, as this falls within the purview of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the trial judge. The court concluded that the committal proceedings were not exceptional and did not warrant judicial review. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed, and Chen was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent, John Robert Diggle.

Orders