Partridge v The Queen - [2012] QDC 284

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Partridge v. The Queen [2012] QDC 284

PARTIES:

PARTRIDGE, William Noel
(Applicant)

v

R
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2258 of 2011

PROCEEDING:

s. 590AA Criminal application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2012

JUDGE:

Devereaux SC DCJ

ORDER:

The application for the indictment to be quashed or declared void is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – QUEENSLAND – where new indictment presented after expiry of time for presentation of indictment – where new indictment amended existing charges – whether new indictment is properly before the court

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s. 560, s. 561, s. 563, s. 568, s. 572, s. 590, s. 651, s. 668A

R v Doyle [1988] 2 Qd R 434

R vFoley [2003] 2 Qd R 88

R v Ford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] 440

R v Hasler [1986] 2 Qd R 411

R v LT [2006] QCA 534

Re Jenkin [1994] 1 Qd R 268

COUNSEL:

A Boe and P Morreau for the Applicant

D Finch for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Lawyers for the Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Respondents

Introduction

It has always been understood that the entry of a nolle prosequi was not a promise never to proceed in future against the accused.[1] That might still be so. However, since being amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997, Code s. 590 has provided:
[1]Code s. 563; R v Doyle [1988] 2 Qd R 434 at 435.45-55, 437.35-40, 439.25-40.

590.(1) Subject to section 561, when a person charged with an indictable offence has been committed for trial and it is intended to put the person upon his or her trial for the offence, the director of public prosecutions or a Crown prosecutor must present the indictment no later than 6 months after the date on which the person was committed for trial.
(2) If—
(a) an indictment is not so presented; or
(b) it becomes apparent that evidence necessary to establish the offence is not going to be available; or
(c) the accused has absconded and is not likely to be found before the expiry of the period; or
(d) if for any other reason it is impracticable to present the indictment;
the director of public prosecutions or a Crown prosecutor may apply to the
Court at any time before or after the expiry of the period for an extension of
time within which to present an indictment.
(3) The court hearing the application may, if satisfied that good cause is shown and no miscarriage of justice is likely to result, grant the extension of
time the court considers just.
(4) If an indictment is not presented before the expiry of the period or any extension of the period, the person is entitled to be discharged from the consequences of his or her committal.

Upon the accepted authority of the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v

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 Partridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Partridge v. The Queen [2012] QDC 284
Case: [2012] QDC 284
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Partridge v The Queen concerns the validity of a new indictment presented after the expiration of the time for presenting the original indictment. The respondent, Partridge, had been initially charged in an earlier indictment, but a new indictment was subsequently issued that amended the existing charges. Partridge applied to have the new indictment quashed or declared void, arguing that it was improperly presented after the statutory time limit had expired. The court was required to determine whether the new indictment, which amended the original charges, was properly before the court despite being presented outside the statutory time frame.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing the presentation of indictments and the circumstances under which a new indictment could be issued. It considered whether the new indictment constituted a continuation of the original proceedings or a separate prosecution. The court held that the new indictment was properly before it, as it was not a fresh prosecution but an amendment to the original charges within the same proceedings. The court found that the statutory time limit for presenting an indictment did not preclude the amendment of existing charges if the amendment was made within the same prosecution context.

The application to have the indictment quashed or declared void was dismissed. The court concluded that the new indictment was validly issued as it pertained to the same prosecution and did not initiate a new proceeding. The decision confirms that amendments to existing charges can be made within the statutory time frame, provided they are part of the same prosecution and not a new or separate charge. The final orders of the court were that the application for the indictment to be quashed or declared void was dismissed, allowing the case to proceed on the amended charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for the indictment to be quashed or declared void is dismissed.

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:	Partridge v. The Queen [2012] QDC 284
PARTIES:	PARTRIDGE, William Noel (Applicant) v R (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2258 of 2011
PROCEEDING:	s. 590AA Criminal application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 August 2012
JUDGE:	Devereaux SC DCJ
ORDER:	The application for the indictment to be quashed or declared void is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – QUEENSLAND – where new indictment presented after expiry of time for presentation of indictment – where new indictment amended existing charges – whether new indictment is properly before the court Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s. 560, s. 561, s. 563, s. 568, s. 572, s. 590, s. 651, s. 668A R v Doyle [1988] 2 Qd R 434 R vFoley [2003] 2 Qd R 88 R v Ford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] 440 R v Hasler [1986] 2 Qd R 411 R v LT [2006] QCA 534 Re Jenkin [1994] 1 Qd R 268
COUNSEL:	A Boe and P Morreau for the Applicant D Finch for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Nyst Lawyers for the Applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Respondents