IAN ANDREW WOOD ApplicantvTHE REGISTRAR FOR THE RespondentSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2024] QCA 127

[2024] QCA 127

COURT OF APPEAL

BODDICE JA

Appeal No 8578 of 2024
SC No 15710 of 2023

IAN ANDREW WOOD  Applicant

v

THE REGISTRAR FOR THE  Respondent
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 4 JULY 2024

JUDGMENT

BODDICE JA:  This is an application for a stay of the decision of the Senior Judge Administrator in respect of a finding of contempt, with the result that the applicant is required to serve two months of actual custody.  The application for a stay is brought on the basis that the sentence would, effectively, have been served prior to the hearing of the appeal, so that any appeal would be rendered nugatory.

It is accepted that the test applicable for an application to stay the decision is whether it is established that there is, firstly, a good arguable case; secondly, that the applicant will be disadvantaged if a stay is not granted; and thirdly, that there is some competing disadvantage to the respondent if the stay is granted which outweighs the disadvantage suffered by the applicant.

In considering the application, it is, of course, important to keep in mind that it is for the applicant to persuade the Court that the circumstances justify a departure from the ordinary rule that judgments of the trial division should not be treated as merely provisional, pending appeal.

The application stems from an originating application which contained within it an application for a number of orders.  Relevantly, what was sought was two orders in respect of punishment of the applicant for contempt committed in the face of the Court.  The first order related to a contempt on 26 July 2023, which was separately particularised.  The second order related to contempt on 2 August 2023, which was also separately particularised.

The applicant relies on seven grounds of appeal.  The application, as filed, contains six grounds which go to whether, in fact, there ought to have been findings of contempt.  In the course of the hearing, leave was granted to add a further ground, which goes to whether the sentence imposed in respect of the contempt found to have been committed on 2 August 2023 was manifestly excessive.

The grounds of appeal relate to the admissibility of evidence, which was the subject of separate rulings by Justice Martin, and to what weight was to be placed on that evidence and whether that evidence was sufficient to satisfy a ruling of contempt beyond reasonable doubt.  The grounds also include assertions that the judge erred in failing to comply with the rulings of the higher Courts; in applying the appropriate test for the charge; and in misinterpreting evidence.

Turning to the factors I must consider, first is the question of whether there is a good arguable case.  The Court has the benefit of written reasons for the rulings that were made in relation to the evidence.  The Court also has the benefit of written reasons for the finding of contempt and for the imposition of the respective punishments.  A consideration of those reasons does not support a conclusion that there is an overwhelmingly strong case for success on the appeal.  It is not possible, on the present material, to say that the prospects are poor, but it certainly is not an overwhelmingly strong case.

Second, is the question whether the applicant will be disadvantaged if a stay is not granted.  Plainly, the applicant will be disadvantaged.  He will be the subject of arrest and be taken into custody to serve his sentence.  That will be a plain disadvantage.

Third factor, is whether there is some competing disadvantage to the respondent if the stay is granted.  There is no identifiable disadvantage to the respondent if the stay is granted in the present circumstance.

Whilst the applicant will be disadvantaged if a stay is not granted, a factor this Court must consider is that the ruling of the trial division is not provisional.  The applicant, therefore, has to show that this is an appropriate case for a stay.

In circumstances where it cannot be said that the prospects of an arguable case are overwhelmingly strong and the sentence which is the subject of the application for a stay is one which has been imposed as a result of a finding of contempt in the face of the Court for steps taken in the course of a hearing which were found to be a serious contempt, I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for a stay.

This is a matter where the appeal can be expedited.  It was submitted by the applicant that he will be in custody and it is not practical for him to be able to prepare for an expedited hearing.  I do not accept that that is the case.  The grounds of appeal primarily relate to the admissibility of the evidence and the use of that evidence.  They were the subject of specific arguments before Justice Martin and have been the subject of rulings.  The applicant is plainly able to advance those arguments without further needs, other than having access to the rulings made by Justice Martin.

Similarly, the grounds that relate to the findings of contempt are matters which were the subject of detailed submissions, as is clear from Justice Martin’s reasons.  It therefore is a matter of having access to Justice Martin’s reasons and being able to prepare arguments in respect of this matter.

In the circumstances, the applicant has not satisfied me that this is an appropriate case for a stay.  The application for a stay is refused.

hearing now or, just in due course, the Registrar will be in contact with the parties?

BODDICE JA:  I order that the appeal be listed for hearing on 26 July 2024.  I direct that a record be prepared expeditiously and be provided to the parties.  I further direct that the applicant file and serve any outline of submissions ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  How?  I don’t have access to a computer ‑ ‑ ‑

BODDICE JA:  ‑ ‑ ‑ by 4 pm ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  ‑ ‑ ‑ or the ability to file anything.

BODDICE JA:  Mr Nicholson, are you going to insist on an outline of submissions from the applicant?

MR NICHOLSON:  Can I just take a ‑ ‑ ‑

BODDICE JA:  I know the court will benefit from it.

APPLICANT:  Come on.  Seriously.  Just stay the execution of the warrant and allow this matter to proceed properly.  Are you seriously going to – like – like, what the fu ‑ ‑ ‑

MR NICHOLSON:  We won’t insist upon an outline, your Honour, given the nature of the arguments below and just have the matter listed for a hearing.

APPLICANT:  Are you seriously going to break the law that badly just to put me in prison?

BODDICE JA:  I direct that the applicant file any and serve any outline of submissions he wishes to rely upon by 4 pm on ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  How?  I don’t have access to a computer or the ability to file anything.  This is the problem with this.  None of the pre-trial steps can be undertaken because I’m in prison.

BODDICE JA:  ‑ ‑ ‑ twenty-two ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  This is why the stay is necessary.  You’re starting to realise it now.

BODDICE JA:  Twenty-two July 2024.

APPLICANT:  How?  I’m not going to have access to a computer.  I can’t undertake the steps you’re telling me to undertake, and this is what I just argued.  And then you said you can expedite it, but now you’re starting to realise I can’t file an outline of admiss – submissions because I don’t have the ability to access a computer or file the documents.  This is why the stay is necessary.  I am ser – you are just admitting I am seriously disadvantaged by the order you’re making.

BODDICE JA:  I direct that the respondent file and serve any written outline of submissions ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  I can’t.

BODDICE JA:  ‑ ‑ ‑ by ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  I physically can’t.

BODDICE JA:  ‑ ‑ ‑ by 4 pm on ‑ ‑ ‑

APPLICANT:  How can you make an order that I cannot comply with?

BODDICE JA:  ‑ ‑ ‑ twenty-four July 2024.

APPLICANT:  I still can’t do it.  I can – you cannot guarantee I can do that.  It takes three weeks at least to – like, I’ve got – first of all, I have to file a form.  It has to go to the – like, there’s a process.  I cannot – you cannot order me to do something I cannot do.  This is why the stay is need – you are just, like, blatantly breaking the law here.  Like, this is – this is why I’ve submitted a stay.  There’s – like, how can you say I am not being disadvantaged when you’re putting me – telling – putting me in a position of making orders I can’t comply with because you have refused a stay.  Like, this – this is so contradictory.  Your own decision is contradicting itself.

BODDICE JA:  Mr Wood, I have made my ruling and I have given my reasons.

APPLICANT:  And I’m – I’m pointing out to you and I’m imploring your Honour, based on what you’ve just said, to change your decision and realise that you are putting me at a great disadvantage and an inability to successfully run my appeal by telling me that this needs to be done expeditiously and putting me in a position where I can’t even make an outline of submissions in time, let alone actually prepare for an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Like, this is different to – like – and you’re saying that because I ran this case months ago, I am still familiar with the – I’m not.  I need to go back through everything.  This is – this is – like, why – why are you so insistent that I go to prison?  Am I supposed to be killed in prison, am I?  I mean, because that’s what it seems to me because I am ser – I am ‑ ‑ ‑

BODDICE JA:  Mr Wood, I have made my ruling.

APPLICANT:  I am in serious fear of my life, okay.  If I go to prison, I am in serious fear of my life, okay.  I’m putting that out there, okay, because I’m going to get killed if I go to prison, okay.  So please, for the love of Christ, stay the execution of the warrant, because if I go to prison, I will get killed.

BODDICE JA:  Mr Wood, I have made my decision.  Adjourn the court.

APPLICANT:  You have made the decision to murder me.