MH v HJ

The case of MH v HJ involved a legal dispute between the applicant, MH, and the first and second respondents, HJ and the Department of Communities, respectively. The applicant, MH, who is the complainant in a sexual assault charge against the first respondent, sought orders to set aside a direction made by the District Court to allow the first respondent's legal representatives to inspect protected counselling communications (PCC) relating to the applicant. The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the District Court judge had the power to make the direction to inspect the PCC material and whether the direction was affected by jurisdictional error.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) and held that the District Court judge did not have the power to grant leave for the inspection of PCC material for the purpose of assisting the court to determine the matters raised by s 14H of the Act. The court concluded that if such an inspection is to occur, it must be addressed by the legislature. The court also noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to this case, and therefore, could not have altered the construction of the SACP provisions.

The court found that the District Court judge had jurisdiction to make an order in the nature of certiorari, which has the same effect as a prerogative writ of certiorari. The court quashed the direction made by the District Court on 14 April 2023 and remitted the matter to the District Court for further consideration.

In conclusion, the court held that the District Court judge did not have the power to grant leave for the inspection of PCC material, and the direction made by the District Court was affected by jurisdictional error. The court quashed the direction and remitted the matter to the District Court for further consideration, leaving the issue of legislative intervention to be addressed by the legislature.