Crowe v Bennett; ex parte - [1992] QCA 29

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1992] QCA 029
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	O.S.C. No. 18 of 1991

ROBERT ALEXANDER CROWE
v.
CHRISTIAN THOMAS BENNETT

Ex parte: ROBERT ALEXANDER CROWE

DARRYL JOSEPH CHARLESON
v.
CAMERON NOEL BOND

Ex parte: DARRYL JOSEPH CHARLSON

WILLIAM PATRICK McDONNELL
v.
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW HOLDEN and

BRADLEY HAROLD MARRIOTT

Ex parte: WILLIAM PATRICK McDONNELL

In the Court of Appeal
The Chief Justice
Mr Justice McPherson

Mr Justice Davies

JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.

Delivered the 23rd day of March 1992

CATCHWORDS:

JUSTICES - JURISDICTION - COSTS -
Applicants/policemen are complainants who
were ordered by magistrate to pay
respondent's costs of adjournment - whether
s.88(3) limited to charge of simple offence
or breach of duty - whether magistrate
empowered to award such costs either per
statute or due to inherent power
Justices Act ss. 84, 88(3), 104
Acts Interpretation Act s.14(1)
Bail Act s.8

Counsel: Mr. M. Byrne for the Appellants

Ms. C. Holmes for the Respondent, Marriott
Mr. A. Rafter for the Respondents, Bennett and
Holden
Mr. P. Porcellini, Solicitor, for the Respondent,
Bond

Solicitors:	The Director of Prosecutions for the
Appellants
The Legal Aid Office for the Respondent, Marriott Messrs. Biggs & Fitzgerald for the Respondent, Bennett Messrs. Cranston McEachern & Co. for the Respondent, Holden Messrs. Cooke & Hutchinson for the Respondent, Bond
Hearing date(s):	14 February 1992

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

O.S.C. No. 18 of 1991

ROBERT ALEXANDER CROWE
v.
CHRISTIAN THOMAS BENNETT

Ex parte: ROBERT ALEXANDER CROWE

DARRYL JOSEPH CHARLESON
v.
CAMERON NOEL BOND

Ex parte: DARRYL JOSEPH CHARLSON

WILLIAM PATRICK McDONNELL
v.
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW HOLDEN and

BRADLEY HAROLD MARRIOTT

Ex parte: WILLIAM PATRICK McDONNELL

_______________________________________________________
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MCPHERSON JA
DAVIES JA
_______________________________________________________
Reasons of The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Davies
and Mr Justice McPherson delivered on the 23rd day
of March 1992; The Chief Justice and Mr Justice
Davies concurring, Mr Justice McPherson
dissenting.
_______________________________________________________
"THE ORDER NISI TO REVIEW MADE ABSOLUTE AND THE
ORDER FOR COSTS BELOW IS SET ASIDE. NO ORDER MADE
AS TO COSTS OF THE APPEAL. EACH OF THE
RESPONDENTS IS GRANTED A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE
APPEAL COSTS FUND ACT 1973 TO COVER THEIR OWN
COSTS, TO BE TAXED, OF THE APPEAL."

The appellants are three police officers who are complainants against the four respondents, each of whom is charged with stealing with actual violence whilst armed and in company, unlawful detention and going armed in public so as to cause fear. These being indictable offences, an examination pursuant to s.104 of the Justices Act was due to commence on 24 June 1991. Because statements of the prosecution witnesses were delivered late to the respondents, they sought and obtained an adjournment of the hearing. No question arises before us in respect of the magistrate's order granting an adjournment. However, the magistrate ordered that the appellants pay the costs of that adjournment. The appellants appeal by way of order to review against that order substantially on the ground that the magistrate had no power…

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 Crowe v Bennett; ex parte

Details

AGLC: Crowe v Bennett; ex parte [1992] QCA 29
Case: [1992] QCA 29
Decision Date: 23/03/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crowe v Bennett; ex parte, the applicants, who were policemen, sought an order in the Supreme Court to review a decision of a magistrate. The respondents had been granted costs by the magistrate for the adjournment of a matter. The policemen challenged the magistrate's authority to order these costs, arguing that section 88(3) of the Justices Act was limited to the charge of a simple offence or breach of duty. The policemen further contended that the magistrate did not have the power to award such costs either under statute or due to inherent power.

The court was required to determine whether section 88(3) of the Justices Act was limited to the charge of a simple offence or breach of duty, and whether the magistrate had the authority to award costs for the adjournment of a matter. The court also considered whether the magistrate's power to award costs was limited to statutory provisions or whether the court's inherent jurisdiction could be exercised in this context.

The court found that section 88(3) of the Justices Act was not limited to the charge of a simple offence or breach of duty, but rather could apply to any matter before the court. The court also held that the magistrate had the inherent power to award costs for the adjournment of a matter. The court found that the magistrate's decision to award costs was not unreasonable, and therefore the application for review was dismissed. The court did not make any orders for costs.

Orders