Pinzone v Merrin - [2022] QSC 107

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pinzone v Merrin & Anor [2022] QSC 107

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER PINZONE

(applicant)

v
MAGISTRATE BELINDA MERRIN

(first respondent)

ADAM EDWARDS

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 14913 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

11 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2022

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) and (d) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), the application filed on 14 December 2021 is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS – where a magistrate found a prima facie case – where a magistrate made a decision to commit the accused for trial – where judicial review sought on general ground that the magistrate erred by concluding that the evidence presented at the committal could support a finding of guilty at a trial – whether reasonable basis for the application — whether subsequent presentation of an indictment a factor affecting the relief sought – whether in circumstances application should be dismissed as no reasonable basis for the application disclosed and/or an abuse of process

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – whether an award of indemnity costs should be ordered

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 561

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 48

Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld), r 280

Batemberski v Fitzsimon [2000] QSC 185
Clyne v Director of Public Prosecutions (1984) 154 CLR 640
Foord v Whiddett (1985) 6 FCR 475
Graves v Duroux [2014] QSC 198
Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533
Leahy v Barnes [2013] QSC 226

Seymour v Attorney-General [1984] FCA 329

COUNSEL:

G M Elmore, counsel for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Ace Law for the applicant

QPS Legal Unit for the respondents

Before the Court is an application by the second respondent, Adam Edwards, for orders that the application filed 14 December 2021 be: (1) dismissed pursuant to sections 48(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld); (2) in the alternative to order 1, that the application is dismissed pursuant to rule 280(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld); and (3) that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
The substantive application before the Court is an application for review. The application was filed on 14 December 2021, together with a supporting affidavit. The matter first came on for review before the Court in January 2022. By that stage, the first respondent, Belinda Merrin, had indicated that the first respondent would abide by orders of the Court, but would not be involved in the proceedings in accordance with the Hardiman principles. There was also a…

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 Pinzone v Merrin

Details

AGLC: Pinzone v Merrin [2022] QSC 107
Case: [2022] QSC 107
Decision Date: 11 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pinzone v Merrin, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate, who found a prima facie case and committed the accused for trial. The applicant argued that the magistrate erred in concluding that the evidence presented at the committal could support a finding of guilty at a trial. The application for judicial review was brought on the general ground that the magistrate erred in their conclusion. The court had to decide whether there was a reasonable basis for the application, whether the subsequent presentation of an indictment affected the relief sought, and whether the application should be dismissed as no reasonable basis for the application was disclosed and/or as an abuse of process.

The court considered the principles regarding the review of committal decisions and the threshold for granting leave to seek judicial review. The court held that the application did not disclose a reasonable basis and was, therefore, an abuse of process. The court noted that the application for judicial review was essentially an appeal against the committal decision, which was not available as a matter of right. The court also considered the factors relevant to the award of indemnity costs under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis. The court held that the application disclosed no reasonable basis for the relief sought and was an abuse of process. The court also found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the application amounted to an abuse of process, and therefore, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis. The costs were to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) and (d) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), the application filed on 14 December 2021 is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

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:	Pinzone v Merrin & Anor [2022] QSC 107
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER PINZONE (applicant) v MAGISTRATE BELINDA MERRIN (first respondent) ADAM EDWARDS (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 14913 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	11 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2022
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDER:	1. *Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) and (d) of the Judicial Review Act* 1991 (Qld), the application filed on 14 December 2021 is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.**
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS – where a magistrate found a prima facie case – where a magistrate made a decision to commit the accused for trial – where judicial review sought on general ground that the magistrate erred by concluding that the evidence presented at the committal could support a finding of guilty at a trial – whether reasonable basis for the application — whether subsequent presentation of an indictment a factor affecting the relief sought – whether in circumstances application should be dismissed as no reasonable basis for the application disclosed and/or an abuse of process PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – whether an award of indemnity costs should be ordered Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 561 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 48 Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld), r 280 Batemberski v Fitzsimon [2000] QSC 185 Clyne v Director of Public Prosecutions (1984) 154 CLR 640 Foord v Whiddett (1985) 6 FCR 475 Graves v Duroux [2014] QSC 198 Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533 Leahy v Barnes [2013] QSC 226 Seymour v Attorney-General [1984] FCA 329
COUNSEL:	G M Elmore, counsel for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Ace Law for the applicant QPS Legal Unit for the respondents