Marriott v McDonnell; Bennett v Crowe

These applications for special leave to appeal concerned the jurisdiction of courts to award costs in committal proceedings. The applicants, Marriott and Bennett, sought special leave to appeal from decisions of the Queensland Supreme Court. The respondents were McDonnell and Crowe, respectively. The Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) appeared for both respondents and did not oppose the applications for extension of time to file the special leave applications, which were filed out of time.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 88 of the Justices Act (Qld) concerning the power to award costs in committal proceedings. The applicants had abandoned grounds relating to implied and inherent jurisdiction, intending to argue solely on the basis of section 88. The Court was asked to consider whether this statutory provision conferred jurisdiction to award costs against a defendant in a committal proceeding.

Deane J indicated that a significant difficulty with the application was that it solely involved the construction of a particular statutory provision that was not in common form and was heavily influenced by its context. His Honour noted that where no question of general principle was involved, and no great matter of public importance was apparent, the Court would be unlikely to grant leave to appeal. Ms Holmes argued that the interpretation of section 88 was essential for the administration of justice in Queensland's magistrate's courts, highlighting practical difficulties for defendants in committal proceedings, particularly concerning adjournments.