Leahy v Barnes

Case [2013] QSC 226

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leahy v Barnes [2013] QSC 226

PARTIES:

ALAN NOEL THOMAS LEAHY
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL BARNES
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(intervener)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 135 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division 

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2013

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.          The decision of the Coroner to commit the applicant for trial is set aside.

2.          I will hear the parties as to costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT - REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS - APPLICATION FOR A STATUTORY ORDER OF REVIEW - where the applicant applies for a statutory order of review to set aside the decision of the respondent that he be committed to stand trial on a charge of unlawful killing 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER - where the applicant contends the respondent’s decision involved an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Coroners Act 1958 (Qld) - where the applicant submits the respondent took into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision such as the applicant’s morality, criminal history and his own opinion the applicant had told lies - where the applicant submits the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations when making the decision such as whether there was a discretion to commit the applicant for trial and whether the evidence was capable of dispelling any rational hypotheses consistent with the applicant’s innocence - where the applicant contends that the respondent exercised his power in a manner that was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power - whether there was an improper exercise of power

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - OTHER GROUNDS - NATURAL JUSTICE - where the applicant contends a breach of the rules of natural justice happened in relation to the making of the decision because the respondent failed to disclose an association with an expert witness - where the applicant contends a breach of the rules of natural justice happened because the respondent failed to adequately communicate with the applicant about the coronial inquest and failed to disclose some communications with the relatives of the deceased - where the applicant submits these circumstances had the consequence that a fair minded, properly informed member of the public might reasonably apprehend the respondent did not bring an impartial mind to bear upon the evidence and his decision.    

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) ss 4, 32CA
Coroners Act 1958 (Qld) ss 24, 41, 43
Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) ss 45, 48, 100
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 108
Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act 2003 (NT) s 19

British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 203
Delhi and London Bank Ltd v Orchid LR 4 Ind App127
Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 205 CLR 337
Edwards v The Queen

Continue reading Leahy v Barnes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Leahy v Barnes [2013] QSC 226
Case
[2013] QSC 226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leahy applied to the court for a statutory order of review to set aside a decision of the respondent, the State Coroner, that he be committed to stand trial on a charge of unlawful killing. The court was required to determine whether the decision of the Coroner involved an improper exercise of power, whether there was a breach of the rules of natural justice, and whether there were other grounds for setting aside the decision.

The court found that the Coroner had exercised his power in an improper manner by taking into account irrelevant considerations such as the applicant’s morality and criminal history. The court held that the Coroner failed to take into account relevant considerations such as whether there was a discretion to commit the applicant for trial and whether the evidence was capable of dispelling any rational hypotheses consistent with the applicant’s innocence. The court also found that the Coroner breached the rules of natural justice by failing to disclose an association with an expert witness and by failing to adequately communicate with the applicant about the coronial inquest. The court held that these circumstances had the consequence that a fair minded, properly informed member of the public might reasonably apprehend the Coroner did not bring an impartial mind to bear upon the evidence and his decision.

The court set aside the decision of the Coroner to commit the applicant for trial and ordered that the parties be heard as to costs.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that decision-makers exercise their powers in a proper manner and adhere to the rules of natural justice. It also underscores the need for decision-makers to take into account relevant considerations and to avoid taking into account irrelevant considerations. Finally, it emphasises the importance of transparency and communication in decision-making processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Coroner to commit the applicant for trial is set aside.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.