Parrella Enterprises P/L v Cannavan - [2006] QCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parrella Enterprises P/L v Cannavan [2006] QCA 35

PARTIES:

PARRELLA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 080 582 010
(appellant/applicant)
v
DAVID PATRICK CANNAVAN
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 275 of 2005
DC No 4427 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST DECENCY AND MORALITY – OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS – PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY – where applicant convicted of one count of displaying for sale or selling an objectionable film and one count of selling prohibited publications – where the applicant was fined $4,000 with no conviction recorded

EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – CROSS-EXAMINATION – WHEN PERMITTED AND IN GENERAL – ON WHAT MATTERS – whether applicant denied the opportunity to cross-examine the director of the Classification Board as to the process which led to classifications recorded in certificates – whether any challenge could more appropriately be directed to criminal law or administrative law – whether applicant’s rights to test nature of prosecution case in quasi-criminal proceeding were unduly restricted

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) s 11, s 42, s 44
Classification of Films Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 39, s 60

Classification of Publications Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 11, s 12, s 32, s 38

COUNSEL:

P J Dunning SC, with C Jennings, for the applicant
W Isdale for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: This is an application, under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), for leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court given on 28 September 2005. A learned District Court Judge dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court given on 15 September 2004.

The applicant was charged with one count of displaying for sale or selling an objectionable film, contrary to s 39 of the Classification of Films Act 1991 (Qld); and one count of selling prohibited publications, contrary to s 12 of the Classification of Publications Act 1991 (Qld). Each of those statutes is a Queensland Act. The applicant was convicted, and fined $4,000 with no convictions recorded.

The Queensland Acts are complementary to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth). The Commonwealth Act sets up a procedure and criteria for the uniform national classification of films and publications. The classification of a film is made by an officer of the Commonwealth, and of a publication either by an officer of the Commonwealth or a State officer. It is the classification which determines whether a film is “objectionable”, or a publication…

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 Parrella Enterprises P/L v Cannavan 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: [2006] QCA 35
Decision Date: 17 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parrella Enterprises P/L v Cannavan, the applicant was convicted of one count of displaying for sale or selling an objectionable film and one count of selling prohibited publications. The applicant was fined $4,000 with no conviction recorded. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the director of the Classification Board regarding the process that led to the classifications recorded in the certificates, and whether any challenge to this matter should be directed to criminal law or administrative law. Furthermore, the court examined whether the applicant's rights to test the nature of the prosecution case in a quasi-criminal proceeding were unduly restricted.

The court considered the question of whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the director of the Classification Board. The court held that any challenge to the process by which the director arrived at the classification should be directed to administrative law, not criminal law. The court found that the applicant's rights to test the nature of the prosecution case were not unduly restricted, as the applicant was still able to challenge the evidence and the classification process through other means, including seeking a review of the classification decision by the Classification Review Board. The court also found that the applicant's right to cross-examine the director was not absolute, and that the trial judge had the discretion to limit cross-examination if it was not relevant or necessary to the issues in the case.

In light of the above, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the applicant's rights were not unduly restricted, and that any challenge to the classification process should be directed to administrative law. The court found that the trial judge had acted within their discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the director of the Classification Board.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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:	Parrella Enterprises P/L v Cannavan [2006] QCA 35
PARTIES:	PARRELLA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 080 582 010 (appellant/applicant) v DAVID PATRICK CANNAVAN (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 275 of 2005 DC No 4427 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams and Keane JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST DECENCY AND MORALITY – OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS – PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY – where applicant convicted of one count of displaying for sale or selling an objectionable film and one count of selling prohibited publications – where the applicant was fined $4,000 with no conviction recorded EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – CROSS-EXAMINATION – WHEN PERMITTED AND IN GENERAL – ON WHAT MATTERS – whether applicant denied the opportunity to cross-examine the director of the Classification Board as to the process which led to classifications recorded in certificates – whether any challenge could more appropriately be directed to criminal law or administrative law – whether applicant’s rights to test nature of prosecution case in quasi-criminal proceeding were unduly restricted Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) s 11, s 42, s 44 Classification of Films Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 39, s 60 Classification of Publications Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 11, s 12, s 32, s 38
COUNSEL:	P J Dunning SC, with C Jennings, for the applicant W Isdale for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Nyst Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent