O'Connor v Witness G - [2013] QSC 281

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281

PARTIES:

DANIEL MICHAEL O’CONNOR
(applicant)

v

WITNESS G
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4911 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

1 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 June 2013

JUDGE:

Margaret Wilson J

ORDER:

1.   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer on 29 May 2013;

2.   I order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of five months and 27 days from today;

3.   I make no order as to costs;

4.   I direct that the following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court:

(i)     certificate of contempt;

(ii)   affidavit of Olivia Eva Kamrowski, filed by leave on 25 June 2013;

(iii) affidavit of Darren Paul Reilly, filed by leave on 25 June 2013;

(iv) outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant;

(v)   outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent; and

(vi) exhibit 1.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt – where the Crime and Misconduct Commission was authorised to hold investigative hearings in relation to a murder – where the respondent was issued with a notice requiring the respondent to attend the hearings to give evidence – where the presiding officer put a question to the respondent that he refused to answer – where the applicant issued a certificate of contempt against the respondent pursuant to s 199(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act, and certified the contempt to the Court – assessment of the appropriate punishment – range of penalties that may be imposed – whether maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applicable – whether the parole provisions of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applicable

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) s 190, s 198, s 199, s 200
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 8
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 44, s 45, s 90, s 91, s 100, s 101, s 111, s 112, s 143, s 152, s 153A, s 159A, s 160A, s 160B, s 163
Uniform Civil ProcedureRules 1999 (Qld) Ch 20 Divs 1-4, rr r 925, r 926, r 930, r 931, r 932

Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union & ors v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, cited
Paroz v Paroz [2010] QSC 488, cited
Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999) 200 CLR 386, considered
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, considered

COUNSEL:

M Copley QC for the applicant

PJ Callaghan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Official Solicitor to the Crime and Misconduct Commission for the applicant

Robertson O’Gorman for the respondent

MARGARET WILSON J: The applicant is the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Connor v Witness G and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QSC 281
Decision Date: 1 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case sought an order that the respondent be committed to prison for contempt. The dispute arose from investigative hearings held by the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland, which was authorised to investigate a murder. The respondent was issued a notice to attend the hearings and give evidence. However, when asked a question by the presiding officer, the respondent refused to answer, leading the applicant to issue a certificate of contempt against the respondent under section 199(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act. The court had to decide on the appropriate punishment for the respondent's contempt and whether the maximum term of imprisonment and parole provisions prescribed by the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) were applicable.

The court assessed the severity of the contempt and the range of penalties that could be imposed. It considered the respondent's refusal to answer a question during a critical investigation, which could have significant implications for the administration of justice. The court found that the respondent's actions constituted contempt beyond reasonable doubt. In determining the appropriate punishment, the court considered the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and concluded that the maximum term of imprisonment and parole provisions were applicable. The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of five months and 27 days from the date of the order.

In summary, the court found the respondent guilty of contempt and ordered imprisonment for a specified term. The court made no order regarding costs and directed that certain materials be sealed and marked not to be opened without a court order. This decision highlights the court's role in enforcing the authority of investigative bodies and ensuring the integrity of judicial processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer on 29 May 2013;

2. I order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of five months and 27 days from today;

3. I make no order as to costs;

4. I direct that the following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court:

(i) certificate of contempt;

(ii) affidavit of Olivia Eva Kamrowski, filed by leave on 25 June 2013;

(iii) affidavit of Darren Paul Reilly, filed by leave on 25 June 2013;

(iv) outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant;

(v) outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent; and

(vi) exhibit 1.

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 Witness G [2013] QSC 281
PARTIES:	DANIEL MICHAEL O’CONNOR (applicant) v WITNESS G (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 4911 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	1 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 June 2013
JUDGE:	Margaret Wilson J
ORDER:	1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer on 29 May 2013; 2. I order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of five months and 27 days from today; 3. I make no order as to costs; 4. I direct that the following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked not to be opened without an order of the Court: (i) certificate of contempt; (ii) affidavit of Olivia Eva Kamrowski, filed by leave on 25 June 2013; (iii) affidavit of Darren Paul Reilly, filed by leave on 25 June 2013; (iv) outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant; (v) outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent; and (vi) exhibit 1.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt – where the Crime and Misconduct Commission was authorised to hold investigative hearings in relation to a murder – where the respondent was issued with a notice requiring the respondent to attend the hearings to give evidence – where the presiding officer put a question to the respondent that he refused to answer – where the applicant issued a certificate of contempt against the respondent pursuant to s 199(2) of the Crime and Misconduct Act, and certified the contempt to the Court – assessment of the appropriate punishment – range of penalties that may be imposed – whether maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applicable – whether the parole provisions of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applicable Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) s 190, s 198, s 199, s 200 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 8 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 44, s 45, s 90, s 91, s 100, s 101, s 111, s 112, s 143, s 152, s 153A, s 159A, s 160A, s 160B, s 163 Uniform Civil ProcedureRules 1999 (Qld) Ch 20 Divs 1-4, rr r 925, r 926, r 930, r 931, r 932 Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union & ors v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, cited Paroz v Paroz [2010] QSC 488, cited Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999) 200 CLR 386, considered Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, considered
COUNSEL:	M Copley QC for the applicant PJ Callaghan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Official Solicitor to the Crime and Misconduct Commission for the applicant Robertson O’Gorman for the respondent