R v Corbett - [2002] QCA 340

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cth DPP v Corbett & Ors [2002] QCA 340

PARTIES:

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(respondent)
v
CORBETT, Robert Edward
CORBETT, Anne Shirley
PARKER, Kenneth Edwin
MACKAY, Rodney James
ALLEN, John Andrew
COOPER, Robert Murray
WOOD, Brian Michael
(applicants)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8933 of 2001
Appeal No 8949 of 2001
Appeal No 9117 of 2001
DC No 1090 of 2001
Appeal No 9118 of 2001
DC No 1362 of 2001
Appeal No 9119 of 2001
DC No 1089 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Removal or Remission

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 July 2002

JUDGES:

Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Applications dated 3 October 2001 by Robert Edward Corbett and Anne Shirley Corbett, 5 October 2001 by Kenneth Edwin Parker, 9 October 2001 by Rodney James Mackay, John Andrew Allen, Robert Murray Cooper and Brian Michael Wood to the District Court be removed into this Court.
2. Dismiss each of those applications.

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION - GENERAL MATTERS - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH AND STATES GENERALLY - where each applicant was charged with offences under the Corporations Law of Queensland - where the indictment for each applicant was presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - whether the Commonwealth had power to legislate with respect to the offences when the offences were committed - whether s 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) enables the Commonwealth to prosecute what was, when committed, a state offence

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION - MATTERS REFERRED BY STATES (CONSTITUTION, s 51(xxxvii)) - whether s 1383 and s 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) is a valid law with respect to a referred matter

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION - FILING OF INFORMATION, PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT - QUEENSLAND - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is entitled to present indictments for offences which were committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - MOTION TO QUASH - where the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions presented indictments for offences committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had the legislative authority to present the indictments - whether the indictments should be quashed

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PERSONS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT PROSECUTION - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is entitled to conduct the prosecution of offences which were committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland

CORPORATIONS - SUPERVISION, REGULATION AND CORRECTION - OFFENCES - PROCEEDINGS - where each applicant was charged with offences under the Corporations Law of Queensland - where the indictment for each applicant was presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions…

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 Corbett

Details

AGLC: R v Corbett [2002] QCA 340
Case: [2002] QCA 340
Decision Date: 6 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Corbett, the applicants sought to have their indictments quashed on the basis that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) did not have the legislative authority to prosecute the offences committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants were charged with various offences under the Corporations Law of Queensland, and the indictments were presented by the Commonwealth DPP. The applicants argued that the Commonwealth did not have the power to legislate with respect to the offences when they were committed and that section 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) does not enable the Commonwealth to prosecute what was, when committed, a state offence. The applicants also contended that the transitional provisions of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth), in particular sections 1383 and 1401, are not valid laws of the Commonwealth.

The court was required to determine whether the Commonwealth had the power to legislate with respect to the offences in question, whether section 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) is a valid law with respect to a referred matter, and whether the Commonwealth DPP was entitled to present the indictments for offences committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the Corporations Law of Queensland. The court also examined relevant case law, including Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; in re Yates, Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth, and R v Kidman.

The court found that the Commonwealth had the power to legislate with respect to the offences in question, and that section 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) is a valid law with respect to a referred matter. The court held that the Commonwealth DPP was entitled to present the indictments for offences committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland, as the transitional provisions of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) were valid laws of the Commonwealth. The court dismissed the applicants' applications to have their indictments quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Applications dated 3 October 2001 by Robert Edward Corbett and Anne Shirley Corbett, 5 October 2001 by Kenneth Edwin Parker, 9 October 2001 by Rodney James Mackay, John Andrew Allen, Robert Murray Cooper and Brian Michael Wood to the District Court be removed into this Court.

2. Dismiss each of those applications.

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:	Cth DPP v Corbett & Ors [2002] QCA 340
PARTIES:	COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent) v CORBETT, Robert Edward CORBETT, Anne Shirley PARKER, Kenneth Edwin MACKAY, Rodney James ALLEN, John Andrew COOPER, Robert Murray WOOD, Brian Michael (applicants)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8933 of 2001 Appeal No 8949 of 2001 Appeal No 9117 of 2001 DC No 1090 of 2001 Appeal No 9118 of 2001 DC No 1362 of 2001 Appeal No 9119 of 2001 DC No 1089 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Removal or Remission
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 July 2002
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Applications dated 3 October 2001 by Robert Edward Corbett and Anne Shirley Corbett, 5 October 2001 by Kenneth Edwin Parker, 9 October 2001 by Rodney James Mackay, John Andrew Allen, Robert Murray Cooper and Brian Michael Wood to the District Court be removed into this Court. 2. Dismiss each of those applications.
CATCHWORDS:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION - GENERAL MATTERS - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH AND STATES GENERALLY - where each applicant was charged with offences under the Corporations Law of Queensland - where the indictment for each applicant was presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - whether the Commonwealth had power to legislate with respect to the offences when the offences were committed - whether s 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) enables the Commonwealth to prosecute what was, when committed, a state offence CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION - MATTERS REFERRED BY STATES (CONSTITUTION, s 51(xxxvii)) - whether s 1383 and s 1401 of the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) is a valid law with respect to a referred matter CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION - FILING OF INFORMATION, PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT - QUEENSLAND - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is entitled to present indictments for offences which were committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - MOTION TO QUASH - where the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions presented indictments for offences committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had the legislative authority to present the indictments - whether the indictments should be quashed CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PERSONS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT PROSECUTION - whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is entitled to conduct the prosecution of offences which were committed under the Corporations Law of Queensland CORPORATIONS - SUPERVISION, REGULATION AND CORRECTION - OFFENCES - PROCEEDINGS - where each applicant was charged with offences under the Corporations Law of Queensland - where the indictment for each applicant was presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions…