Croll v Reeves - [2005] QCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Croll v Reeves [2005] QCA 77

PARTIES:

LEONARD THEODORE CROLL
(applicant/applicant)
v
MICHAEL REEVES
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10494 of 2004
SC No 9123 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave/Judicial Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

22 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson and Keane JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1. Application dismissed
2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed on the indemnity basis

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WITNESSES - POWERS OF JUDGE - OTHER MATTERS - applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle - after conviction made application to District Court seeking direction that several witnesses in trial be dealt with for contempt of court - registrar refused to accept application - application to Supreme Court to direct registrar to accept application or to begin contempt proceedings unsuccessful - whether application under s 590AA Criminal Code can be brought after trial - whether s 590AA Criminal Code gives power to registrar to punish for contempt - whether allegation of perjury can support finding of contempt

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 30
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 42

Keeley v Mr Justice Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162, cited
McGoldrick v Citicorp Finance Pty Ltd [1990] VR 503, cited
Re Bride; ex parte Stewart (1995) 60 FCR 569, cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
J Fenton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I will ask Justice Keane to deliver the first set of reasons.

KEANE JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the refusal by the learned primary Judge to direct the Registrar of the District Court pursuant to s 30 of the District Courtof Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) to accept an application purporting to be made under s 590AA of the Criminal Code seeking a direction that several witnesses in a criminal trial, which had been concluded, be dealt with for contempt of Court.

By way of background, on 23 March 2004 the applicant was convicted after a trial on two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. He was acquitted of one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The jury was unable to reach a verdict with respect to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

On 6 April 2004 the applicant was sentenced with respect to the two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle to 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service. The applicant appealed against his conviction and on 30 July 2004 that appeal was dismissed by this Court: see R v Croll

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 Croll v Reeves

Details

AGLC: Croll v Reeves [2005] QCA 77
Case: [2005] QCA 77
Decision Date: 22 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Croll v Reeves, the applicant, Croll, sought to challenge the refusal of the registrar of the District Court of Queensland to accept an application for the punishment of several witnesses who, according to the applicant, had provided false testimony during his trial for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Following his conviction, Croll made an application to the District Court to direct the registrar to accept his application or to begin contempt proceedings against the witnesses. The registrar declined to accept the application, and Croll subsequently sought an order in the Supreme Court of Queensland to compel the registrar to accept the application or to direct him to commence contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed Croll's application and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application for contempt could be brought under section 590AA of the Criminal Code after the conclusion of the trial, whether section 590AA gave the registrar the power to punish for contempt, and whether an allegation of perjury could support a finding of contempt. The court considered whether the application was time-barred and whether the registrar had the requisite authority to entertain the matter. Additionally, the court needed to determine if an allegation of perjury alone could justify contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court found that the application for contempt was not time-barred but held that section 590AA did not confer upon the registrar the power to punish for contempt. The court reasoned that the registrar could not entertain the application for contempt proceedings and, therefore, the registrar's refusal to accept the application was justified. The court also held that an allegation of perjury was not sufficient to support a finding of contempt in the absence of evidence or a formal finding by the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Croll's application and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed

2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed on the indemnity basis

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.

CITATION:	Croll v Reeves [2005] QCA 77
PARTIES:	LEONARD THEODORE CROLL (applicant/applicant) v MICHAEL REEVES (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10494 of 2004 SC No 9123 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave/Judicial Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	22 March 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 March 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson and Keane JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. Application dismissed 2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed on the indemnity basis
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WITNESSES - POWERS OF JUDGE - OTHER MATTERS - applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle - after conviction made application to District Court seeking direction that several witnesses in trial be dealt with for contempt of court - registrar refused to accept application - application to Supreme Court to direct registrar to accept application or to begin contempt proceedings unsuccessful - whether application under s 590AA Criminal Code can be brought after trial - whether s 590AA Criminal Code gives power to registrar to punish for contempt - whether allegation of perjury can support finding of contempt Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 30 Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 42 Keeley v Mr Justice Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162, cited McGoldrick v Citicorp Finance Pty Ltd [1990] VR 503, cited Re Bride; ex parte Stewart (1995) 60 FCR 569, cited
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf J Fenton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent