Police v Joseph - [2018] QMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Joseph [2018] QMC 12

PARTIES:

COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE
SERVICE
(witness)
v
JOSEPH Paul Desmond Wayne
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SOUT MAG – 00024851/17

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application for production of documents

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2018

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate MacKenzie

ORDER:

1.   I dismiss the application for disclosure directing the Commissioner of the Queensland Police to produce items 1 to 25, save for Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1

2.   I direct that the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service disclose to the Applicant the following items by 4.00 pm 29 August, 2018:

(a)   Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1.

(b)   The irregularity between Items 3, 7, 10, 14 and 18.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT OF
SUMMONS OF A WITNESS - production of documents - public interest immunity –
legitimate forensic purpose
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A (5)(aa), s 83A (5) (a)(ii)
Criminal Code (Qld) s590AJ (2)(e) and (f), s590AQ
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s803

COUNSEL:

J. Nyst (sol) for the applicant
Const J. Merchant for the prosecution
M. Capper for the Commissioner of Police, Qld

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Legal for the applicant
Queensland Police Service Prosecutions

Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the witness

The applicant Paul Desmond Wayne Joseph (“the Applicant”) is charged with one count of production of dangerous drugs. Put generally, I understand it is alleged that he provided equipment and generally assisted Vietnamese gardeners to produce commercial scale cannabis crops through a business Hyalite Super Grow stores. He seeks production of documents pursuant to s 590AJ (2) (e) and (f) of the Criminal Code (Qld) (“QCC”) and s83A (5) (aa) and s 83A (5) (a) (ii) of the Justices Act (Qld).

The Commissioner of Police (Qld) (“the Commissioner”) was directed to attend this Magistrates Court on 3 August, 2018. On that date a legal representative appeared on behalf of the Commissioner and objected to production of certain requested documents. An affidavit under the hand of Jon Harold Wacker, a Detective Superintendent of Police, sworn 2 August, 2018, was produced to support this objection.

The hearing of this application is authorised under s 83A of the Justices Act 1886 which provides the process by which a magistrate may hear an application for a direction about the conduct of a proceeding. Any direction made will be binding unless leave is given to reopen.[1]
[1] Section 83A Justices Act (Qld)

Initially, the applicant objected to the reception of the affidavit under the hand of Jon Harold Wacker, in support of the Commissioner’s public interest objection. This was primarily because the Applicant had not seen the affidavit. However, the procedure proposed by the Commissioner is not unusual. Common sense dictates that a claim for secrecy must be heard without disclosure to the very party sought…

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 Joseph

Details

AGLC: Police v Joseph [2018] QMC 12
Case: [2018] QMC 12
Decision Date: 8 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Joseph is a case that involved an application for disclosure in committal proceedings. The court was required to determine whether certain items should be disclosed to the applicant. The decision was made by the court, and the primary focus was on the legal issues surrounding the disclosure of specific items and the irregularity between certain items. The court dismissed the application for disclosure for most of the items but directed the disclosure of some specific items by a particular date.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide involved the scope of disclosure in committal proceedings and the relevance and admissibility of the items in question. The applicant sought disclosure of 25 items, but the court found that most of these items were not relevant or necessary for the proceedings. However, the court identified three specific items that needed to be disclosed due to their potential relevance to the case. Additionally, the court identified an irregularity between certain items that needed to be addressed.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the relevance and admissibility of each item in question. The court found that most of the items were not necessary for the proceedings and that their disclosure would not assist the applicant in preparing a defence. However, the court identified three specific items that had the potential to be relevant to the case and directed their disclosure. The court also identified an irregularity between certain items that needed to be addressed to ensure that the proceedings were fair and just.

The court's orders were to dismiss the application for disclosure for most of the items but to direct the disclosure of specific items by a particular date. The court also directed that the irregularity between certain items be addressed. The court's decision highlights the importance of a careful analysis of the relevance and admissibility of items in committal proceedings and the need to ensure that proceedings are fair and just.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I dismiss the application for disclosure directing the Commissioner of the Queensland Police to produce items 1 to 25, save for Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1

2. I direct that the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service disclose to the Applicant the following items by 4.00 pm 29 August, 2018:

(a) Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1.

(b) The irregularity between Items 3, 7, 10, 14 and 18.

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

CONST J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CONST J

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Police v Joseph [2018] QMC 12
PARTIES:	COMMISSIONER OF THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (witness) v JOSEPH Paul Desmond Wayne (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SOUT MAG – 00024851/17
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application for production of documents
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2018
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate MacKenzie
ORDER:	1. I dismiss the application for disclosure directing the Commissioner of the Queensland Police to produce items 1 to 25, save for Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1 2. I direct that the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service disclose to the Applicant the following items by 4.00 pm 29 August, 2018: (a) Items 13, 19 and 22 on Table 1. (b) The irregularity between Items 3, 7, 10, 14 and 18.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT OF SUMMONS OF A WITNESS - production of documents - public interest immunity – legitimate forensic purpose Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A (5)(aa), s 83A (5) (a)(ii) Criminal Code (Qld) s590AJ (2)(e) and (f), s590AQ Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s803
COUNSEL:	J. Nyst (sol) for the applicant Const J. Merchant for the prosecution M. Capper for the Commissioner of Police, Qld
SOLICITORS:	Nyst Legal for the applicant Queensland Police Service Prosecutions Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the witness