Gant v Magistrate Kucks - [2013] QSC 285

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gant v Magistrate Kucks & Anor [2013] QSC 285

PARTIES:

CHARLES GANT
(applicant)
v
MAGISTRATE KUCKS
(first respondent)
SHEREE KATHLEEN RAWSON
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

11269 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for judicial review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2013

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – HEARING – CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATES – POWER AND DUTY OF MAGISTRATE GENERALLY – where the applicant was involved in an altercation with a woman – where the first respondent conducted the committal proceeding – where the creditability and reliability of the applicant and another witness was called into question – where the first respondent dismissed the complaints – whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the complaints

Criminal Code (Qld), s 686
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 104

Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353, considered
Buck v Bavonne (1976) 135 CLR 110, considered
Purcell v Vernados (No 2) [1997] 1 Qd R 317, considered
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, considered

COUNSEL:

Litigant in person
Amicus curiae – G del Villar for the Attorney-General

SOLICITORS:

Litigant in person
Amicus curiae – G R Cooper Crown Solicitor

The applicant seeks orders under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (“the JR Act”) with respect to committal proceedings against the second respondent (Ms Rawson). The first respondent, Magistrate Kucks, was given leave to withdraw. Ms Rawson did not appear. Mr del Villar appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General as amicus curiae.

Background

In July 2009 Mr Gant and Ms Rawson were involved in an altercation which resulted in Mr Gant being stabbed in the right hand. It was a serious injury requiring hospitalisation. The history of the proceeding from that time was recorded in the reasons given by Magistrate Kucks on 25 June 2012 as follows:

“This matter has a rather chequered and lengthy history that I shall briefly recount. [Ms Rawson] was originally charged by the Police and when the matter came before this court for criminal proceedings the complainant Mr Gant and another witness Mr Crinis did not attend. The charge was then struck out by the court. The police prosecution corps apparently declined to recharge [Ms Rawson] and Mr Gant commenced proceedings by way of private complaint. In early 2011, that complaint came before this court and an application to make amendments was refused and the complaint struck out as not revealing any offences. The day after that order [Mr Gant] filed this complaint which contains the wording of the proposed amendments which had been disallowed the day before. In December 2011 an application was brought by [Ms Rawson] for a permanent stay of proceedings. I declined to make such an order and set the matter for committal. As this now comes under the ‘Moynihan amendments’ the matter was to proceed as a hand up committal…

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 Gant v Magistrate Kucks 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: [2013] QSC 285
Decision Date: 23 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gant v Magistrate Kucks, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by Magistrate Kucks during a committal proceeding. The applicant was involved in a physical altercation with a woman, leading to criminal charges. The magistrate was accused of improperly dismissing complaints about the credibility and reliability of the applicant and another witness. The applicant sought to challenge the magistrate's handling of the proceeding. The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the complaints regarding the credibility and reliability of the applicant and another witness, and if so, whether such error warranted judicial review.

The court found that the magistrate had acted within the scope of their discretion in dismissing the complaints. It was held that the magistrate was entitled to assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence presented. The court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness in the magistrate's decision. The applicant's arguments that the magistrate had failed to properly consider the credibility of the witnesses were rejected, as the court found that the magistrate had provided adequate reasons for their assessment.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The magistrate's decision to dismiss the complaints about the credibility and reliability of the applicant and another witness was upheld as being within the proper exercise of their discretion. The court found no grounds for interference with the magistrate's handling of the committal proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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:	Gant v Magistrate Kucks & Anor [2013] QSC 285
PARTIES:	CHARLES GANT (applicant) v MAGISTRATE KUCKS (first respondent) SHEREE KATHLEEN RAWSON (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	11269 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for judicial review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2013
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – HEARING – CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATES – POWER AND DUTY OF MAGISTRATE GENERALLY – where the applicant was involved in an altercation with a woman – where the first respondent conducted the committal proceeding – where the creditability and reliability of the applicant and another witness was called into question – where the first respondent dismissed the complaints – whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the complaints Criminal Code (Qld), s 686 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 104 Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353, considered Buck v Bavonne (1976) 135 CLR 110, considered Purcell v Vernados (No 2) [1997] 1 Qd R 317, considered Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, considered
COUNSEL:	Litigant in person Amicus curiae – G del Villar for the Attorney-General
SOLICITORS:	Litigant in person Amicus curiae – G R Cooper Crown Solicitor