Millar v A/C Magistrate Brassington - [2023] QSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Millar v A/C Magistrate Brassington & Ors [2023] QSC 191

PARTIES:

ANDREW JOHN MILLAR

(applicant)

v
A/C MAGISTRATE BRASSINGTON
(first respondent)

AND

MAGISTRATE PREVITERA

(second respondent)

AND

MAGISTRATE COOKE
(third respondent)

AND

COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 7264 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2023

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

1. The proceedings in the Application for Review filed 21 June 2022 against the fourth respondent are dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of the proceedings save for the costs of appearance on 19 July 2022.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – where the fourth respondent applies to strike out an application for review filed by the applicant under s 48(1) of the Judicial Review Act (Qld) – where the applicant was convicted of criminal offences in relation to which, after a successful appeal and remittal of the charges to the Magistrates Court, a nolle prosequi was entered – where the applicant seeks to raise issues with how the charges were pursued and prosecuted and with the decision-making of various Judges and Magistrates – whether the application for review discloses any reasonable basis, is frivolous or vexatious and/or it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant the application

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

du Boulay v Worrell & Ors [2009] QCA 63

Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission & Ors [2020] QSC 321

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared for himself
M Nicolson for the fourth respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared for himself
QPS Legal Unit for the fourth respondent

The Court must determine whether to dismiss the Application for Review filed 21 June 2022 on the basis that it does not disclose any reasonable basis for the application, is frivolous or vexatious and/or it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant the application. The application is made by the fourth respondent, the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service, under s 48(1) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA).
Section 48(1) of the JRA provides:
48 Power of the court to stay or dismiss applications in certain circumstances
(1) The court may stay or dismiss an application under section 20, 21, 22 or 43 or a claim for relief in such an application, if the court considers that—
(a) it would be inappropriate—
(i) for proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or
(ii) to grant the application or claim; or
(b) no reasonable basis for the application or claim is disclosed; or
(c) the application or claim is frivolous or vexatious; or
(d) the application or claim is an abuse of the process of the court.
The applicant, Mr Millar, filed an Application for Review on 21 June 2022. At that time, he was facing charges…

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 Millar v A/C Magistrate Brassington

Details

AGLC: Millar v A/C Magistrate Brassington [2023] QSC 191
Case: [2023] QSC 191
Decision Date: 24 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Millar, filed an application for review against the fourth respondent, A/C Magistrate Brassington, under section 48(1) of the Judicial Review Act (Qld), challenging various decisions made in relation to his criminal convictions. These convictions were subsequently overturned on appeal, and a nolle prosequi was entered. The respondent applied to strike out the review application on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, and lacked any reasonable basis. The central legal issue was whether the application for review disclosed any reasonable basis, was frivolous or vexatious, and if it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant the application.

The Court held that the application for review was without any reasonable basis. It was found that the applicant had already been acquitted of the charges in question and had been compensated for the wrongful imprisonment. The Court emphasised that the applicant had no legal standing to challenge the conduct of the judicial officers or the prosecutorial decisions. Furthermore, the applicant’s grievances were found to be entirely speculative and did not present any justiciable issues. The application was considered to be an abuse of process, lacking any real prospect of success and serving no useful purpose.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the proceedings in the application for review. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, except for the costs of appearance on 19 July 2022. The Court underscored the importance of ensuring that applications for judicial review are not used as a means to pursue baseless or vexatious claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings in the Application for Review filed 21 June 2022 against the fourth respondent are dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of the proceedings save for the costs of appearance on 19 July 2022.

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:	Millar v A/C Magistrate Brassington & Ors [2023] QSC 191
PARTIES:	ANDREW JOHN MILLAR (applicant) v A/C MAGISTRATE BRASSINGTON (first respondent) AND MAGISTRATE PREVITERA (second respondent) AND MAGISTRATE COOKE (third respondent) AND COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 7264 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2023
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	1. The proceedings in the Application for Review filed 21 June 2022 against the fourth respondent are dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of the proceedings save for the costs of appearance on 19 July 2022.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – where the fourth respondent applies to strike out an application for review filed by the applicant under s 48(1) of the Judicial Review Act (Qld) – where the applicant was convicted of criminal offences in relation to which, after a successful appeal and remittal of the charges to the Magistrates Court, a nolle prosequi was entered – where the applicant seeks to raise issues with how the charges were pursued and prosecuted and with the decision-making of various Judges and Magistrates – whether the application for review discloses any reasonable basis, is frivolous or vexatious and/or it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant the application Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) du Boulay v Worrell & Ors [2009] QCA 63 Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission & Ors [2020] QSC 321
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared for himself M Nicolson for the fourth respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared for himself QPS Legal Unit for the fourth respondent