Meredith v Gough; R v Meredith

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Meredith v Gough & Anor
R v Meredith [2003] QSC 482

PARTIES:

SCOTT ANDREW MEREDITH
(applicant)
v
JASON GORDON GOUGH
(first respondent)
ACTING MAGISTRATE ROGER STARK
(second respondent)
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(third respondent)

THE QUEEN
v
SCOTT ANDREW MEREDITH
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

S9789/03
Ind 301/03

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2003

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Applications dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure -Adjournment, stay of proceedings or order restraining proceedings – Stay of proceedings – Abuse of process.

COUNSEL:

A. Boe (Sol) for the Applicant

W. T. McMillan (Sol) for the First Respondent

M. Bobic for the Second Respondent

P. L. Feeney for the Third Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Lawyers (A. Boe) for the Applicant

Carne Reidy Herd for the First Respondent

C. H. Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the Second Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Third Respondent

1. The applicant, Mr Meredith, seeks to quash an indictment charging him with possessing a dangerous drug, cannabis sativa, alternatively a temporary stay of those proceedings, and, among other orders, an order to restrain permanently the further prosecution of another part heard committal hearing for another charge of trafficking in that substance. His grounds for seeking that relief are that there has been an abuse of process because the police officers who investigated the charges misconducted themselves in the investigations. They are said to have misled a Magistrate who issued a warrant, not to have obtained search warrants for a car and some real property when they could and should have done so and to have lied to the Magistrates’ Court during committal hearings about the reasons why Mr Meredith's car was pulled over and it and his real property searched.  

1. The alleged misconduct by the police officers was revealed through evidence that became available on the second of two committal hearings.  The first hearing was into the charge of possession while the second, which is not yet complete, is into the charge of trafficking.  During the second committal hearing some of the officers claimed privilege against self incrimination in respect of their reasons for searching Mr Meredith’s car and property.

1. On the material before me there is no real controversy about the facts that give rise to these assertions against the officers. They were summarized in the applicant's submissions in reply in the following terms:

14.    The applicant points in this regard to the clear evidence that:

14.1.   Police officers King and Shore misled the magistrate at the first committal as to the reasons for their interception and search of the applicant’s vehicle.

14.2.   Police officer Stagoll swore a false statement in his application for a post search approval order in respect of the search of 99 Levington Rd, Eight Mile Plains: document “c” to Exhibit “A” to the second affidavit of Jeffrey David Finch dated 28 November 2003.

14.3.   Stagoll then misled the magistrate…