Police v Atkinson - [2013] QMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Atkinson [2013] QMC 18

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

LEONARD STANLEY THOMAS ATKINSON

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SOUT-MAG-941/12

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application to cross-examine a witness in a committal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2013

MAGISTRATE:

Magee KT

ORDER:

application granted

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES – substantial reasons - interests of justice

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A(5AA), s 110B

COUNSEL:

Roberts (police officer) for prosecution

Carlin (solicitor) for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution on own behalf

Legal Aid Queensland for defendant

The defendant is charged that on 11 January 2011 at Surfers Paradise he robbed Mitchell Westhead and used other personal violence to Mitchell Westhead. This is an application under section 83A(5AA) of the Justices Act 1886 for a direction requiring the prosecution to call a number of witnesses to be made available for cross examination on their witness statements.

The prosecution has consented to cross examination of three witnesses in relation to particular matters. The applicant in addition seeks further cross examination of the witness Thompson than agreed to by the prosecution.

A direction requiring the prosecution to call witnesses to be made available for cross examination on the witness statements must not be given unless I am satisfied that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should be made available for cross examination on the witness’s written statement.[1]
[1]Section 110B(1) Justices Act 1886

It is now reasonably well settled that the provisions of section 110B(1) of the Justices Act 1886 were modelled on section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1988 (NSW) and that the NSW authorities in relation to “substantial reasons” afford considerable assistance to the determination under the Queensland Legislation.[2]
[2]See for example Police v BCR [2011] QMC 29; Police v CM [2011] QMC 14; PJK v Police [2011] QMC 43.

A number of relevant principles may be distilled from the New South Wales authorities.

(i) The purpose of the legislation is to avoid delay by unnecessary or prolix cross examination at committal.[3]
[3]Sim v Magistrate Corbett [2006] NSWSC 665

(ii) Committal proceedings are not to provide the opportunity for a full dress rehearsal for trial. Cross examination is to be eliminated unless it is required in the interest of justice for reasons that are reasons of substance.[4]
[4]Hanna v Kearney [1998] NSWSC 227; DPP v Losurdo [1998] 44 NSWLR 618

(iii) The onus of proof is on the defence to satisfy the court that an order should be made.[5]
[5]Sim v Magistrate Corbett

(iv) Each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances. It is not possible to define exhaustively or even at all what might, in a particular case, constitute substantial reasons. The categories are not closed and flexibility of approach is required in the light of the issues that may arise…

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 Police v Atkinson

Details

AGLC: Police v Atkinson [2013] QMC 18
Case: [2013] QMC 18
Decision Date: 18 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Police v Atkinson, the appellant was charged with various offences related to drug trafficking. The matter was brought before the court on the basis of a committal hearing, where the respondent sought to cross-examine witnesses to challenge the admissibility and credibility of the evidence presented. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent had demonstrated substantial reasons for the need to cross-examine the witnesses and whether it was in the interests of justice to allow such examination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had provided sufficient grounds to justify cross-examining the witnesses. The court considered the application in light of established principles, which require the respondent to demonstrate that the cross-examination was necessary to challenge the evidence, and that it would likely lead to a material outcome in the proceedings. Additionally, the court examined whether the interests of justice would be served by allowing the cross-examination, taking into account factors such as the potential impact on the witnesses, the public interest in the fair administration of justice, and the overall efficiency of the proceedings.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the respondent had indeed demonstrated substantial reasons for cross-examining the witnesses. The court concluded that the cross-examination was necessary to challenge critical aspects of the evidence and that it would likely lead to a material outcome in the proceedings. Furthermore, the court determined that allowing the cross-examination was in the interests of justice, as it would contribute to a fair and thorough examination of the evidence. Consequently, the court granted the application, permitting the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses during the committal hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

application granted

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:	Police v Atkinson [2013] QMC 18
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v LEONARD STANLEY THOMAS ATKINSON (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SOUT-MAG-941/12
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application to cross-examine a witness in a committal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	18 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2013
MAGISTRATE:	Magee KT
ORDER:	application granted
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES – substantial reasons - interests of justice Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A(5AA), s 110B
COUNSEL:	Roberts (police officer) for prosecution Carlin (solicitor) for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Prosecution on own behalf Legal Aid Queensland for defendant