SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: CJC & Ors v. Dick [2000] QSC 272 PARTIES: (1)
(2)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
(Applicant)
v.
JULIE MAREE DICK
(Respondent)MICHAEL ALLAN BARNES
(Applicant)
and
JOHN JOSEPH BARTON
(Applicant)
and
PIERRE MARK LE GRAND
(Applicant)
and
GEORGE ANTHONY NOLAN
(Applicant)
and
GAVIN JAMES RADFORD
v.
JULIE MAREE DICK
(Respondent)FILE Nos: (1)
(2)11504/99
6073/00DIVISION: Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17, 18 July 2000 JUDGE: Helman J. ORDER: Applications dismissed CATCHWORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – THE CROWN – ROYAL COMMISSION, BOARDS OF INQUIRY AND LIKE INVESTIGATIONS – POWERS AND PRIVILEGES – GENERALLY – whether potential breach of parliamentary privilege – whether applications seeking to question parliamentary proceedings are justiciable
Bill of Rights 1689
Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950
Constitution Act 1867
Criminal Justice Act 1989
Imperial Acts Application Act 1984
Parliamentary Papers Act 1992Ainsworth & Anor v. Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 C.L.R. 564
Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 271
Criminal Justice Commission v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd [1996] 2 Qd. R. 444
Hamilton v. Al Fayed [2000] 2 W.L.R. 609
Laurance v. Katter [2000] 1 Qd. R. 147
R. v. Jackson (1987) 8 N.S.W.L.R. 116
R. v. Smith, ex parte Cooper [1992] 1 Qd. R. 423COUNSEL: W. Sofronoff Q.C. and G.C. Newton for the Applicants
A.J.H. Morris Q.C. and D.C. Rangiah for the Respondent
H.B. Fraser Q.C. amicus curiae at the request of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.SOLICITORS: R.A. Evans
Official Solicitor, Criminal Justice Commission, for the Applicants
HELMAN J: These applications, which were heard together, arise out of a report dated 30 August 1999 by the respondent, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner, to the Criminal Justice Committee of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The parliamentary commissioner is an officer of Parliament, as s. 118G(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 provides, and the committee is a committee of the Legislative Assembly established under s. 115 of that Act. Among the functions of the parliamentary committee are those provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of s. 118(1):
(a)to monitor and review the discharge of the functions of the commission as a whole and of the official misconduct division in particular;
(b)to report to the Legislative Assembly, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matters pertinent to the commission, the discharge of the commission’s functions or the exercise of the powers of the commission, a commissioner, or of officers of the commission, to which the attention of the Assembly should, in the committee’s opinion, be directed;
The ‘commission’ referred to is the applicant Criminal Justice Commission constituted by the Act, and ‘the official misconduct division’ is a division within the commission established under s. 19(1). Section 118R in part 4A (PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSIONER, ss. 118G to 118ZA) provides for the functions of the parliamentary commissioner. Subsection (2) of that section provides that the commissioner has the functions, as required by the parliamentary committee, to…
Continue reading CJC v Dick
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CJC v Dick [2000] QSC 272
- Case
- [2000] QSC 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the potential breach of parliamentary privilege could be considered by the court, and whether the applications seeking to question parliamentary proceedings were justiciable. The court had to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to hear such matters and to what extent it could review the decisions of parliament.
The High Court found that the potential breach of parliamentary privilege did not present a justiciable issue. The court held that the principle of parliamentary privilege was a matter of constitutional law and was not subject to judicial review. The court emphasised that the separation of powers doctrine and the principle of parliamentary privilege were fundamental to the Australian Constitution. The court also found that the applications seeking to question parliamentary proceedings were not justiciable, as they would involve the court in matters that were inherently political in nature. The court concluded that such matters were beyond its jurisdiction and should be resolved within the parliamentary process.
The High Court dismissed the applications and held that the potential breach of parliamentary privilege did not present a justiciable issue. The court emphasised that the principle of parliamentary privilege was a matter of constitutional law and was not subject to judicial review. The court also found that the applications seeking to question parliamentary proceedings were not justiciable, as they would involve the court in matters that were inherently political in nature.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications dismissed
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.