R v Deemal

Case [2009] QCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Deemal [2009] QCA 131

PARTIES:

R
v
DEEMAL, Adrian William
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 299 of 2008
DC No 2914 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2009

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENT – WHEN PUNISHABLE – PROCEEDINGS – where appellant convicted of one count of perjury – where appellant gave evidence in a Queensland Crime Commission hearing into the suspected unlawful killing of a young woman – where appellant was the last person known to have seen the woman – where s 123 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) provides “any person who in any judicial proceeding … knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then depending in that proceeding” commits perjury – whether QCC hearing was a “judicial proceeding” – whether there was a question depending in the proceeding – whether appellant’s evidence was material to a question depending in the proceeding

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s 206
Crime Commission Act 1997 (Qld), s 28, s 45, s 100, s 101, s 107, s 120
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 119, s 123
Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld), s 125(b)
Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997 (Qld), s 43

Blake v Norris (1990) 20 NSWLR 300, cited
Cheney v Spooner (1929) 41 CLR 532; [1929] HCA 12, applied
Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Prime Commodities Pty Ltd & Ors (1987) 11 ACLR 584, cited
Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd and Another (2007) 156 FCR 501; [2007] FCA 13, distinguished
Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289; [1991] HCA 53, cited
R v Lewis (1914) 10 Tas LR 48, distinguished
Re Sons of Gwalia Ltd; Ex Parte Love (2008) 66 ACSR 253; [2008] WASC 75, distinguished
Rex v Griepe, 91 ER 1067, cited
The King  v Aylett (1785) 1 TR 63, cited
The Queen v Baker (1895) 1 QB 797, cited
The Queen v Davies (1974) 7 SASR 375, distinguished
The Queen v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; [1992] HCA 25, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins, with J C Trevino, for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

O’Reilly Stevens Bovey Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA:  The appellant appeals against his conviction by a jury of a count of perjury, charged in the indictment as follows:

“That between the thirty-first day of May, 2000 and the twenty-eighth day of June, 2000 at Cairns in the State of Queensland, ADRIAN WILLIAM…

Continue reading R v Deemal

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Deemal [2009] QCA 131
Case
[2009] QCA 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Deemal involved an appellant who was convicted of one count of perjury following his testimony at a Queensland Crime Commission (QCC) hearing. The QCC was investigating the suspected unlawful killing of a young woman, and the appellant was the last person known to have seen the woman. His conviction was challenged on the basis that the QCC hearing was not a "judicial proceeding" as defined by section 123 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), which stipulates that perjury is committed by knowingly giving false testimony in any judicial proceeding that touches on any material matter in question. The appellant argued that his evidence was not material to any question depending in the proceeding.

The court had to determine whether the QCC hearing constituted a "judicial proceeding" for the purposes of the perjury statute. Additionally, the court had to establish if there was a question depending in the proceeding and whether the appellant's evidence was material to that question. The court examined the nature and purpose of the QCC hearing, its powers, and the consequences of the appellant's testimony in the context of the investigation into the woman's death. The court found that the QCC hearing was indeed a "judicial proceeding" as it involved a formal investigation with powers to compel testimony and gather evidence, akin to a court of inquiry.

The court held that the QCC hearing was a judicial proceeding because it was a formal investigation with the power to compel testimony and gather evidence, which is similar to a court of inquiry. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was a question depending in the proceeding, which was the investigation into the woman's death. The appellant's evidence was deemed material as it pertained to the last known sighting of the victim and was relevant to the investigation. The court rejected the appellant's argument that his evidence was not material to any question depending in the proceeding, finding that it had a direct impact on the investigation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for perjury was upheld. The court's decision confirmed that the QCC hearing was a judicial proceeding, and the appellant's false testimony was material to the questions depending in the proceeding. The appellant's conviction for perjury was therefore justified, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.