Power v Heyward

[2007] QSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Power v Heyward & Ors [2007] QSC 026

PARTIES:

DAVID LESLIE POWER
(applicant)
v
BRETT HEYWARD
(first respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

11100/06

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 January 2007

JUDGE:

Byrne J

ORDER:

Application Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE  –  MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS  –  DECLARATIONS  –  CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS  –  DISCRETION OF COURT  –  where the applicant sought a declaration that the prosecution commenced by complaint and summons out of time  –  where the applicant sought a permanent stay of proceedings

PROCEDURE  –  MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS  –  DECLARATIONS  –  CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS  –  whether a Magistrate can determine incidental or preliminary questions of law or fact before evidence is adduced in a trial

Justices Act 1886, s 83A, s 145, s 146, s 146(1), s 148,
Local Government Act 1993, s 430, s 436, s 436(4), s 1080

Anderson v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 198, cited
Attorney-General v Otahuhu District Court [2001] 3 NZLR 740, considered
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Jiang (2001) 111 FCR 395, cited
Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385, cited
DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226, cited
DPP v Lewis [1997] 1 VR 391, cited
DPP v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129, followed
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1, followed
Higgins v Comans (2005) 153 A Crim R 565, applied
Landsal Pty Ltd (in liq) v REI Building Society (1993) 41 FCR 421, followed
Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3, considered
M v M [1993] 1 VR 391, followed
Neill v County Court of Victoria (2003) 40 MVR 265, cited
O’Toole v Scott [1965] AC 939, cited
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369, considered

Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) (1999) 198 CLR 435, cited

Police v Turbitt (2005) 92 SASR 480, considered
R v Cooling [1990] 1 Qd R 376, cited
R v Long (No 1) [2002] 1 Qd R 662, cited
Rozenes v Beljajev [1995] 1 VR 533, cited
Seymour v Attorney-General (1984) 4 FCR 498, cited
Williamson v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572, applied

COUNSEL:

BW Walker SC for the applicant

R Devlin SC for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Lawyers for the applicant

Crown Law for the first and second respondents

Fragmenting criminal proceedings

1. On 29 November 2006, a complaint was issued under the Justices Act 1886. It alleges that, on or about 5 July 2004, the applicant contravened s 436 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”) by failing to furnish a return required by s 430 of the Act disclosing details of “prescribed gifts” received in relation to a 2004 Gold Coast City Council election.

1. The applicant seeks a declaration that the prosecution is time-barred,…