O'Connor v CD - [2016] QSC 37

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Connor v CD [2016] QSC 37

PARTIES:

DANIEL MICHAEL O’CONNOR

(Applicant)

v
CD

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

SC No 479 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

12 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2016

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

1. The respondent be punished for his contempt by imprisonment for four months, cumulatively upon the sentence he is presently serving.

2. The originating application, the amended originating application, the respective outlines of submissions and the certificate and affidavit filed by leave today, along with a transcript of my reasons entitled with the respondent’s actual name, be placed in an envelope which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Supreme Court or any Court which may be sentencing the respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW – EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION – where a notice to attend a hearing was issued pursuant to s 82 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) to the respondent in relation an organised crime investigation – where the respondent indicated he would not answer questions – where the respondent refused to take the oath – whether the respondent committed contempt

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE BODIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent failed to take an oath when required at a hearing – where failing to take an oath is offence under s 183 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where failing to take an oath can be punished as a contempt under s 199 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether the respondent should be punished for contempt

COUNSEL:

S Williams for the Applicant

M Dalton for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crime and Corruption Commission for the Applicant

Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the Respondent

HIS HONOUR: A delegate of the chairman of the Crime and Corruption Commission, an acting senior executive officer, decided that an investigation commence. The criminal activity to be investigated was organised crime occurring since the 1^st of January 2004 that involved a named offender and associates and an offence of trafficking, supplying, producing and/or otherwise dealing in dangerous drugs and sundry associated offences.

On the 1^st of September 2015 the same acting senior executive officer authorised the holding of a hearing in relation to the investigation. The hearing was presided over by the applicant, Mr O’Connor. On 27 October 2015 an attendance notice was issued pursuant to section 82 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 upon the respondent requiring him to appear at the hearing. On the appointed date he appeared at the hearing.

After a generic explanation was given to him at the start of the proceeding about what was going to be unfolding he explained he had no questions about the topics discussed, but indicated:

I’m not going…

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 O'Connor v CD

Details

AGLC: O'Connor v CD [2016] QSC 37
Case: [2016] QSC 37
Decision Date: 12 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of O'Connor v CD, the respondent, who is currently serving a sentence in a Queensland correctional facility, faced a contempt charge due to his refusal to comply with a notice issued under section 82 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The notice was related to an organised crime investigation and required the respondent to attend a hearing and answer questions. However, the respondent indicated that he would not answer any questions and subsequently refused to take the oath when required. This refusal led to the contempt charge against the respondent, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the respondent's refusal to take the oath and answer questions constituted contempt under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the failure to take an oath, which is an offence under section 183 of the Act, could also be considered contempt under section 199 of the Act. The court further needed to assess whether the contempt was of a sufficient gravity to warrant punishment and, if so, what form that punishment should take.

The court found that the respondent's refusal to take the oath and answer questions indeed constituted contempt under the Act. It was established that the respondent's actions were deliberate and intended to obstruct the course of justice and the administration of the law. The court held that such conduct warranted punishment under the Act. After considering the circumstances of the case, including the respondent's previous convictions and the severity of the contempt, the court sentenced the respondent to an additional four months of imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with his existing sentence. The court also ordered that the documents related to the contempt proceedings be sealed and stored in a manner that prevents premature disclosure.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be punished for his contempt by imprisonment for four months, cumulatively upon the sentence he is presently serving, and that the relevant documents be sealed and stored to prevent premature disclosure.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent be punished for his contempt by imprisonment for four months, cumulatively upon the sentence he is presently serving.

2. The originating application, the amended originating application, the respective outlines of submissions and the certificate and affidavit filed by leave today, along with a transcript of my reasons entitled with the respondent’s actual name, be placed in an envelope which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Supreme Court or any Court which may be sentencing the respondent.

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:	O’Connor v CD [2016] QSC 37
PARTIES:	DANIEL MICHAEL O’CONNOR (Applicant) v CD (Respondent)
FILE NO:	SC No 479 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:	12 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2016
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDER:	1. The respondent be punished for his contempt by imprisonment for four months, cumulatively upon the sentence he is presently serving. 2. The originating application, the amended originating application, the respective outlines of submissions and the certificate and affidavit filed by leave today, along with a transcript of my reasons entitled with the respondent’s actual name, be placed in an envelope which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Supreme Court or any Court which may be sentencing the respondent.
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW – EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION – where a notice to attend a hearing was issued pursuant to s 82 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) to the respondent in relation an organised crime investigation – where the respondent indicated he would not answer questions – where the respondent refused to take the oath – whether the respondent committed contempt CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE BODIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent failed to take an oath when required at a hearing – where failing to take an oath is offence under s 183 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where failing to take an oath can be punished as a contempt under s 199 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether the respondent should be punished for contempt
COUNSEL:	S Williams for the Applicant M Dalton for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crime and Corruption Commission for the Applicant Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the Respondent