Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission - [2014] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 60

PARTIES:

PETER MARKAN
(appellant)
v
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9591 of 2013
SC No 4516 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where the appellant requested the learned primary judge provide him with evidence of his Honour’s competence as a judge – where before the learned primary judge the appellant contended that the respondent was obliged to provide him protection against “lawyers’ mafia” and had failed to do so – where the learned primary judge gave judgment to the respondent against the appellant, finding that the appellant’s application had no prospects of success – where on appeal the appellant questioned the competency and legitimacy of appointment of the learned primary judge, the members of this Court and the Supreme Court generally – where the appellant repeats his contention made before the learned primary judge that the respondent was obliged to provide him protection against “lawyers’ mafia” and failed to do so – whether the learned primary judge erred in failing to provide evidence of his Honour’s competence as a judge – whether the learned primary judge erred in finding that the appellant’s application had no prospects of succeeding

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld)

Markan v Legal Services Commission [2011] QSC 338, cited
R v Markan[2009] QCA 110, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Richards for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crime and Misconduct Commission for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: This appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Morrison JA.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Morrison JA and with the reasons given by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: This is an appeal by Mr Markan from an order giving judgment for the respondent in respect of his entire claim.

The Claim and Statement of Claim

The claim was filed on 20 May 2013. It seeks the following relief:

(a) that the respondent make a “public apology for the harm and the distress caused utilizing all major public media available in a clear and highly visible manner”;

(b) that the respondent pay monetary compensation of “A$10000000.13” (AUD$10,000,000.13), as damages for loss suffered by the appellant;

(c) an order declaring the respondent “as criminal organisation and to order its dissolution”;

(d) a declaration that the personnel of the respondent are not fit and proper to hold “any position in Queensland requiring trustworthiness and honesty”, and an order “prohibiting…

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.

Continue reading Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission

Details

AGLC: Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 60
Case: [2014] QCA 60
Decision Date: 1 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission, the appellant, Markan, sought to appeal against a decision made by the primary judge, which dismissed his application against the respondent, the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Markan argued that the primary judge lacked the necessary competence to preside over the case and contended that the respondent had failed to protect him from a so-called "lawyers' mafia." The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the primary judge had erred in declining to provide evidence of his competence and in finding that Markan's application had no prospects of success.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge was correct in refusing to furnish evidence of his judicial competence and whether the judge had erred in concluding that Markan's application lacked a reasonable chance of success. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the appellant's claims about the primary judge's competence and the legitimacy of the court system constituted valid grounds for appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in declining to provide evidence of his competence, as there was no legal obligation for the judge to do so in the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court determined that the primary judge's assessment of the prospects of success for Markan's application was correct, as the claims made by Markan were without merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Markan to pay the costs associated with the appeal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed, with 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.

CITATION:	Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 60
PARTIES:	PETER MARKAN (appellant) v CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9591 of 2013 SC No 4516 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed, with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where the appellant requested the learned primary judge provide him with evidence of his Honour’s competence as a judge – where before the learned primary judge the appellant contended that the respondent was obliged to provide him protection against “lawyers’ mafia” and had failed to do so – where the learned primary judge gave judgment to the respondent against the appellant, finding that the appellant’s application had no prospects of success – where on appeal the appellant questioned the competency and legitimacy of appointment of the learned primary judge, the members of this Court and the Supreme Court generally – where the appellant repeats his contention made before the learned primary judge that the respondent was obliged to provide him protection against “lawyers’ mafia” and failed to do so – whether the learned primary judge erred in failing to provide evidence of his Honour’s competence as a judge – whether the learned primary judge erred in finding that the appellant’s application had no prospects of succeeding Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) Markan v Legal Services Commission [2011] QSC 338, cited R v Markan[2009] QCA 110, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P F Richards for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Crime and Misconduct Commission for the respondent