DBH v Australian Crime Commission Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DBH v Australian Crime Commission & Ors [2014] QCA 359

PARTIES:

DBH
(appellant)
v
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
(first respondent)
WILLIAM MACLEAN BOULTON
(second respondent)
JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD
(third respondent)
BROWN
(fourth respondent)
SMITH
(fifth respondent)
JONES
(sixth respondent)
GREEN
(not a party to the appeal)

FILE NOS:

Appeal No 2889 of 2014
SC No 8528 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF THE COURT – COSTS – where the appellant appealed unsuccessfully against the decision of a trial division judge to refuse his application for the transcripts of his co-accused’s evidence in the Australian Crime Commission – whether costs should follow the event

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the appellant
No appearance for the first respondent, the first respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the fourth respondent
No appearance for the fifth respondent
No appearance for the sixth respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Australian Government Solicitor for the first respondent
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the fourth respondent
No appearance for the fifth respondent
No appearance for the sixth respondent

THE COURT: The appellant appealed unsuccessfully against the decision of a trial division judge to refuse his application for the transcripts of his co-accused’s evidence in the Australian Crime Commission. The Australian Crime Commission seeks the costs of the appeal. The appellant, having been given the opportunity to make submissions, has not done so; unsurprisingly because there is no obvious reason that the costs should not follow the event.

The appellant should pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DBH (the appellant) appealed against the decision of a trial division judge to refuse his application for the transcripts of his co-accused’s evidence in the Australian Crime Commission (the first respondent). The appellant was seeking the transcripts to prepare his case for an appeal against his conviction. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial division judge’s decision to refuse the application was correct and whether the first respondent should be awarded costs.

The central legal issue was whether the trial division judge had the authority to refuse the appellant's application for the transcripts. The appellant argued that the refusal was an abuse of the court's discretion, given that access to the transcripts was necessary for a fair appeal process. The first respondent contended that the judge's decision was appropriate and within their discretion. The court had to weigh the principles of fairness in the appeal process against the discretionary powers of the trial division judge.

The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the trial division judge's decision to refuse the application for transcripts was not an abuse of discretion. The court emphasised that the judge’s decision was within their discretionary powers and was not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the court concluded that the first respondent was entitled to costs for the appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

DBH v Australian Crime Commission

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	DBH v Australian Crime Commission & Ors [2014] QCA 359
PARTIES:	DBH (appellant) v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (first respondent) WILLIAM MACLEAN BOULTON (second respondent) JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD (third respondent) BROWN (fourth respondent) SMITH (fifth respondent) JONES (sixth respondent) GREEN (not a party to the appeal)
FILE NOS:	Appeal No 2889 of 2014 SC No 8528 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGE:	Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF THE COURT – COSTS – where the appellant appealed unsuccessfully against the decision of a trial division judge to refuse his application for the transcripts of his co-accused’s evidence in the Australian Crime Commission – whether costs should follow the event
COUNSEL:	No appearance for the appellant No appearance for the first respondent, the first respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance for the second and third respondents No appearance for the fourth respondent No appearance for the fifth respondent No appearance for the sixth respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Australian Government Solicitor for the first respondent No appearance for the second and third respondents No appearance for the fourth respondent No appearance for the fifth respondent No appearance for the sixth respondent