F v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2021] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

F v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QCA 244

PARTIES:

F
(appellant)
v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No XXXX of 2020
SC No XXXX of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 245 (Jackson J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison and Mullins JJA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to adduce the affidavit of Ms Cheeseman affirmed on 8 October 2020 on the appeal refused.

2.   Appeal dismissed.

3.   Any further submissions on costs must be made in writing and not exceed two A4 pages within seven days of the date on which these reasons for judgment are published.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – EXCLUSIONS: PRIVILEGES – PUBLIC INTEREST PRIVILEGE – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act) – where the appellant was summoned by the respondent to attend a closed hearing in relation to the corruption investigation – where the appellant refused to answer questions that would identify the source of this information on the basis of public interest immunity in reliance on s 192(2A) of the Act – whether the reference to “public interest immunity” in s 192(2A)(b) of the Act is a reference to common law public interest immunity – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the public interest immunity privilege did not extend to a journalist’s obligation not to disclose confidential sources of information

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether there was limited utility in the respondent questioning the appellant as a police officer had been identified for prosecution as an alleged source – whether it was unfair for the respondent to pursue answers from the appellant to questions relating to the sources of information as part of a corruption investigation in respect of the identity of the appellant’s confidential source

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act) – whether paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of s 15(1) of the Act are cumulative requirements or discrete consequences of the relevant conduct that must exist for the conduct to be corrupt conduct – whether s 15(1)(b) of the Act ought to be construed as requiring a stated result or consequential effect of conduct – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the disclosure of information by a police officer about an arrest to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read F v Crime and Corruption Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCA 244
Decision Date: 12 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of F v Crime and Corruption Commission, the court considered appeals arising from a corruption investigation conducted under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The journalist F was summoned by the respondent to attend a closed hearing in relation to the investigation and refused to answer questions that would identify the source of information she had received from a police officer. The primary judge ruled against F's claims of public interest immunity and found that the disclosure of information by the police officer was corrupt conduct. F appealed the decision on several grounds, including the interpretation of the Act and the application of public interest immunity.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), specifically whether the reference to "public interest immunity" in section 192(2A)(b) of the Act is a reference to common law public interest immunity. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge erred in holding that the public interest immunity privilege did not extend to a journalist's obligation not to disclose confidential sources of information. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether there was limited utility in the respondent questioning the journalist as a police officer had been identified for prosecution as an alleged source, and whether it was unfair for the respondent to pursue answers from the journalist to questions relating to the sources of information.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the primary judge's interpretation of the Act was correct. The court found that the reference to "public interest immunity" in section 192(2A)(b) of the Act was not a reference to common law public interest immunity. The court also held that the primary judge was not bound by the decision of another intermediate appellate court which held that a similar provision was reasonably proportionate and adapted to the legitimate purpose of maintaining the institutions of representative government by investigating corruption involving or affecting public authorities. The court concluded that section 192 of the Act did not impermissibly burden the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. The court found that the primary judge had not erred in concluding that the disclosure of information by a police officer about an arrest to a journalist was corrupt conduct.

The court further held that there was limited utility in the respondent questioning the journalist as a police officer had been identified for prosecution as an alleged source, and that it was not unfair for the respondent to pursue answers from the journalist to questions relating to the sources of information. The court found that the primary judge had not erred in concluding that the disclosure of information by a police officer about an arrest to a journalist was corrupt conduct. The court also held that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 15(1) of the Act are cumulative requirements or discrete consequences of the relevant conduct that must exist for the conduct to be corrupt conduct. The court concluded that section 15(1)(b) of the Act ought to be construed as requiring a stated result or consequential effect of conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to adduce the affidavit of Ms Cheeseman affirmed on 8 October 2020 on the appeal refused.

2. Appeal dismissed.

3. Any further submissions on costs must be made in writing and not exceed two A4 pages within seven days of the date on which these reasons for judgment are published.

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:	F v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QCA 244
PARTIES:	F (appellant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No XXXX of 2020 SC No XXXX of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 245 (Jackson J)
DELIVERED ON:	12 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2021
JUDGES:	Morrison and Mullins JJA and Boddice J
ORDERS:	1. Leave to adduce the affidavit of Ms Cheeseman affirmed on 8 October 2020 on the appeal refused. 2. Appeal dismissed. 3. Any further submissions on costs must be made in writing and not exceed two A4 pages within seven days of the date on which these reasons for judgment are published.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – EXCLUSIONS: PRIVILEGES – PUBLIC INTEREST PRIVILEGE – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act) – where the appellant was summoned by the respondent to attend a closed hearing in relation to the corruption investigation – where the appellant refused to answer questions that would identify the source of this information on the basis of public interest immunity in reliance on s 192(2A) of the Act – whether the reference to “public interest immunity” in s 192(2A)(b) of the Act is a reference to common law public interest immunity – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the public interest immunity privilege did not extend to a journalist’s obligation not to disclose confidential sources of information CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether there was limited utility in the respondent questioning the appellant as a police officer had been identified for prosecution as an alleged source – whether it was unfair for the respondent to pursue answers from the appellant to questions relating to the sources of information as part of a corruption investigation in respect of the identity of the appellant’s confidential source STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent is investigating disclosures of information made by a police officer to the appellant journalist as part of a corruption investigation under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act) – whether paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of s 15(1) of the Act are cumulative requirements or discrete consequences of the relevant conduct that must exist for the conduct to be corrupt conduct – whether s 15(1)(b) of the Act ought to be construed as requiring a stated result or consequential effect of conduct – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the disclosure of information by a police officer about an arrest to…