R v Brisbane TV Ltd - [1995] QSC 74

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
Motion No. 187 of 1995

Before Mr Justice Dowsett

[R v Brisbane TV Ltd]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

BRISBANE TV LIMITED

AND:

CHRISTOPHER ADAM

AND:

PETER MAHON
Ex parte:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DOWSETT J.

Judgment delivered 03/05/1995

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Justice Act 1989 - Proper contents of a certification of a contempt of the Criminal Justice Commission under s.107 - inherent power of the Court to strike out parts of the certificate which have the capacity to embarrass the conduct of the proceedings by raising false issues.

Counsel: Mr Chesterman QC with Miss O'Reilly for Applicants

Mr Mulholland QC with Mr Applegarth for Respondents

Solicitors: R A Marxson, Official Solicitor Criminal Justice Commission for Applicants

Freehill, Hollingdale & Page for Respondents

Hearing Date: 7 March 1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
Motion No. 187 of 1995

Before Mr Justice Dowsett

[Re: R. v. Brisbane T.V. Limited]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

BRISBANE TV LIMITED

AND:

CHRISTOPHER ADAM

AND:

PETER MAHON
Ex parte:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DOWSETT J.

Judgment delivered 03/05/1995
On 15 and 16 November, 1994 the first respondent, Brisbane T.V. Limited, telecast programmes on Channel 7, Brisbane in which trenchant criticism was made of the applicant, the Criminal Justice Commission. The criticism related to the Commission's handling of a number of matters including, in particular, allegations concerning paedophilia. The applicant alleges that the telecasts constituted contempt of the Commission and asks the Court to deal with Brisbane T.V. Limited and two persons involved in the telecasts, Adam and Mahon, for such contempt. Although the Commission considers that various aspects of the programmes were contemptuous, it asks only that the Court deal with the respondents in connection with their treatment of the paedophilia issue, being content to leave the others matters for resolution in the public domain.
Section 106 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 defines contempt of the Commission. Sub-paragraph(e) relevantly provides:

"(A person who) by writing or speech, uses words that are false and defamatory of the Commission, any commissioner, a person constituting a Misconduct Tribunal or any person conducting proceedings of the Commission (is guilty of a contempt of the Commission)."

Section 107 provides for punishment of contempt as follows:
"(1)A contempt of the Commission may be punished in accordance with this section.

(2)The chairperson may certify the contempt in writing to the Supreme Court.

(3)Where the chairperson certifies the contempt of a person to the Supreme Court -

(a)the Supreme Court shall inquire into the alleged contempt; and

(b)after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the contempt and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, the Supreme Court (if satisfied that the person is guilty of the contempt) may punish or take steps for the punishment of the person in like manner and to the like…

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 R v Brisbane TV Ltd

Details

AGLC: R v Brisbane TV Ltd [1995] QSC 74
Case: [1995] QSC 74
Decision Date: 3 May 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Brisbane TV Ltd involved a dispute where the Criminal Justice Commission sought to hold Brisbane TV Limited, along with individuals Adam and Mahon, accountable for contempt due to the broadcasting of programs critical of the Commission. The crux of the legal issue was whether the contents of the chairperson's certificate, which detailed the alleged contempt, could include matters of law or mixed fact and law, or if it should be confined to primary facts. The respondents argued that the certificate, by asserting ultimate conclusions such as guilt of contempt, improperly pre-empted the court's judgment, conflicting with statutory obligations for impartiality. Conversely, the Commission contended that the certificate's purpose was to bring the matter to the court for determination, and its contents should not pre-empt the court's judgment.

The court ruled that while the certificate's purpose was to bring the matter to the court, its content must be confined to primary facts. The statutory obligation for impartiality necessitated that the certificate should not pre-empt the court's judgment on ultimate issues such as guilt. However, the court held that paragraphs asserting ultimate conclusions could remain to the extent that they notified the respondents of the charges against them, ensuring they were aware of the proceedings' nature. The court found that certain paragraphs asserting irrelevant procedural steps and responses to invitations to show cause were not pertinent to the proceedings and should be struck out. The court exercised its inherent power to ensure the certificate did not contain elements that could mislead or complicate the proceedings.

Orders