Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson - [2010] QCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson [2010] QCA 159

PARTIES:

PROSTITUTION LICENSING AUTHORITY
(applicant/appellant)
v
DEBBIE KAY NEILSON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 14443 of 2009
SC No 8013 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where respondent holder of a brothel licence under the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld) – where respondent charged with offences of illegally procuring prostitution, attempting to procure the destruction of evidence and unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant suspended respondent’s licence to operate a brothel – where primary judge found that, in exercising its power under the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld) to suspend the respondent, the appellant failed to take into account the strength of the prosecution’s case and the fact that the respondent’s brothel was well managed – where trial judge considered it necessary that there be some connection shown between the criminal activity alleged and the privilege of holding the licence – whether trial judge erred in holding that such a connection need be shown – whether appellant failed to take into account relevant considerations in its suspension of the respondent’s licence.

Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld), s 17, s 19, s 26, s 27, s 29, s 30

COUNSEL:

G P Long SC, with N J Thompson, for the appellant
P J Davis SC, with S A McLeod, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the appellant
McLaughlins for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Holmes JA’s reasons for dismissing this appeal with costs.

HOLMES JA: The respondent, Ms Neilson, holds a brothel licence pursuant to which she may lawfully operate a brothel in premises at Woolloongabba. In April 2009, she was charged with a number of prostitution offences relating to the carrying on of an illegal escort business unconnected with the licensed brothel, as well as offences of attempting to procure another person to destroy evidence and unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm. Under ss 27 and 29 of the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld), the Prostitution Licensing Authority suspended her licence for a period of 12 months, a decision which was set aside on a judicial review application.

The Authority now appeals the setting aside of its decision on grounds that the learned primary judge erroneously considered it necessary that some connection be shown between the criminal activity alleged and the privilege of holding the licence, and that he wrongly found that the Authority had failed to take into account relevant considerations: the strength of the prosecution case and the fact that Ms Neilson’s licensed brothel was well-managed.

The Prostitution Act

Part 3, Division 1 of the Prostitution Act

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 Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson

Details

AGLC: Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson [2010] QCA 159
Case: [2010] QCA 159
Decision Date: 22 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson involved a dispute over the suspension of a brothel licence held by the respondent under the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld). The respondent was charged with various offences, including illegally procuring prostitution, attempting to destroy evidence, and unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm. Following these charges, the Prostitution Licensing Authority, the applicant in this case, suspended the respondent's licence to operate the brothel. The respondent challenged this decision, leading to a judicial review of the authority's actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the authority failed to take into account relevant considerations when suspending the respondent's licence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether there was a need to show a connection between the criminal activities alleged against the respondent and the privilege of holding the licence. Additionally, the court considered whether the authority had failed to take into account the strength of the prosecution's case and the respondent's management of the brothel.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in holding that there needed to be a demonstrated connection between the criminal activity and the privilege of holding the licence. The court reasoned that the authority's power to suspend a licence under the Act was not contingent on such a connection. Furthermore, the court held that the authority did not fail to take into account relevant considerations, including the strength of the prosecution's case and the management of the brothel, in suspending the respondent's licence. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson [2010] QCA 159
PARTIES:	PROSTITUTION LICENSING AUTHORITY (applicant/appellant) v DEBBIE KAY NEILSON (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 14443 of 2009 SC No 8013 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 June 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where respondent holder of a brothel licence under the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld) – where respondent charged with offences of illegally procuring prostitution, attempting to procure the destruction of evidence and unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant suspended respondent’s licence to operate a brothel – where primary judge found that, in exercising its power under the Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld) to suspend the respondent, the appellant failed to take into account the strength of the prosecution’s case and the fact that the respondent’s brothel was well managed – where trial judge considered it necessary that there be some connection shown between the criminal activity alleged and the privilege of holding the licence – whether trial judge erred in holding that such a connection need be shown – whether appellant failed to take into account relevant considerations in its suspension of the respondent’s licence. Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld), s 17, s 19, s 26, s 27, s 29, s 30
COUNSEL:	G P Long SC, with N J Thompson, for the appellant P J Davis SC, with S A McLeod, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson for the appellant McLaughlins for the respondent