Criminal Justice Commission v Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner

[2001] QCA 218

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA
CHESTERMAN J

Appeal No 7215 of 2000

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION First Applicant/First Appellant

and

MICHAEL ALLAN BARNES Second Applicant/Second Appellant

and

JOHN JOSEPH BARTON Third Applicant/Third Appellant

and

PIERRE MARK LE GRAND Fourth Applicant/Fourth Appellant

and

GEORGE ANTHONY NOLAN Fifth Applicant/Fifth Appellant

and

GAVIN JAMES RADFORD Sixth Applicant/Sixth Appellant

and

PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE
COMMISSIONER Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/06/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was heard by a Court consisting of Justices of Appeal McPherson and Williams and Justice Chesterman. The orders are the appeals are dismissed with costs. I publish the separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Criminal Justice Commission, along with six individuals who were or had been members of the Commission, filed an appeal against the decision of a trial judge, which was in favor of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner. The dispute centred on the legality of the Commissioner’s actions in withholding documents and information that were sought by the Commission. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which comprised Justices of Appeal McPherson and Williams, as well as Justice Chesterman.

The legal issues that the Court had to resolve included the extent of the Commissioner's immunity from disclosure obligations under the Justices Act 1902 (Qld) and the extent to which the Commissioner could rely on parliamentary privilege to avoid complying with the Commission's requests. The Court also had to determine whether the Commissioner's actions were in the public interest and whether the Commission had the authority to seek the information in question. The Court had to balance the Commissioner's rights and privileges with the Commission's need for information in carrying out its statutory duties.

The Court found that the Commissioner's immunity from disclosure obligations was not absolute and that the Commissioner could be required to disclose information if it was necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions. The Court held that the Commissioner's reliance on parliamentary privilege was not sufficient to avoid disclosure in this case, as the information sought by the Commission was not privileged. The Court also found that the Commissioner's actions were not in the public interest and that the Commission had the authority to seek the information in question. The Court held that the Commissioner's failure to disclose the information was unlawful and that the trial judge's decision in favor of the Commissioner was wrong.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and ordered that costs be paid by the appellants. The Court held that the Commissioner was not entitled to immunity from disclosure obligations and that the Commission had the authority to seek the information in question. The Court found that the Commissioner's actions were not in the public interest and that the trial judge's decision in favor of the Commissioner was wrong. The Court held that the Commissioner's failure to disclose the information was unlawful and that the appeals should be dismissed. The Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established