PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission

Case [2019] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] QSC 83

PARTIES:

PRS

(applicant)

v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 9644 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 March, 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March, 2019

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 21 March, 2019:

1.    The application is dismissed

2.    The parties are to be heard on the question of costs

3.    The parties are to be heard on the release of the undertaking

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – JURISDICTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought an order suspending the investigative powers of the Crime and Corruption Commission (‘the CCC’) – whether it was appropriate for the court to make an order suspending the powers of the CCC – whether the court should enjoin police from charging the applicant

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – INTERPRETATION ACTS AND PROVISIONS – EXERCISE OF POWERS AND DUTIES – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought an order directing the CCC to reopen investigations and direct seconded police officers not to charge the applicant – whether the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) vested jurisdiction in the court to make such orders – whether the court should exercise its discretion in order to make such orders

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld),
Criminal Justice Act 1989
Judicial Review Act 1991
Justices Act 1886
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
Police Service Administration Act 1990
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596, cited
Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75, cited
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, cited
Chief Executive Administering Environmental Protection Act 1994 v Linc Energy Ltd [2016] 2 Qd R 66, cited
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, cited
Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1, cited
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, cited
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1, cited
Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942, cited
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, cited
Le Grand v Criminal Justice Commission [2001] QCA 383, followed
Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265, cited
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501, cited
Police v Dunstall (2015) 256 CLR 403, cited
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 335, cited
Queensland Bacon Proprietary Limited v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266, cited
R v Ferguson [1991] 1 Qd R 35, cited
R v Jell ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 48, cited
Strickland v DPP (Cth) (2018) 361 ALR 23, cited
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509, cited

COUNSEL:

C Stevenson solicitor for the Applicant

Continue reading PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] QSC 83
Case
[2019] QSC 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

PRS sought an order from the court to suspend the investigative powers of the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC). The applicant also sought an injunction against police from charging them. The application was heard and dismissed by the court. The applicant sought the orders on the basis that the CCC had mishandled investigations into their conduct and that the CCC was biased against them. The court considered whether it was appropriate to make such orders, given the statutory powers of the CCC under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld).

The court considered whether the CCC's statutory powers allowed it to make such orders. The court found that the CCC had the power to investigate and charge persons with criminal offences. The court also considered whether the court should exercise its discretion to make such orders, in light of the powers of the CCC. The court found that it was not appropriate to make such orders, given the statutory powers of the CCC. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the CCC's exercise of its powers was unlawful.

The application was dismissed. The court also ordered that the parties be heard on the question of costs and the release of the undertaking. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the CCC had acted unlawfully in exercising its powers. The court found that the CCC had the power to investigate and charge persons with criminal offences. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the CCC had acted in a biased manner. The court found that it was not appropriate to make such orders, given the statutory powers of the CCC.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 21 March, 2019:

1. The application is dismissed

2. The parties are to be heard on the question of costs

3. The parties are to be heard on the release of the undertaking

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.