R v Dexter

Case [2002] QCA 540

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dexter [2002] QCA 540

PARTIES:

R
v
DEXTER, Geoffrey Robert
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 135 of 2001
DC No 3310 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2002

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.  Leave to amend the grounds of appeal given;
2.  Appeal dismissed;
3.  Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION - FILING OF INFORMATION, PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT –QUEENSLAND - where appellant convicted of offences under the Criminal Code (Qld) – where indictment presented and prosecution conducted by a barrister in private practice holding commission to prosecute offences in Queensland pursuant to ss 560(2) and 561(2) Criminal Code – where barrister instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (“CDPP”) – where CDPP funded prosecution – where Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions ("QDPP") consented to the CDPP presenting the indictment – whether CDPP had lawful authority to indict and prosecute the appellant in right of the Commonwealth or in right of the State of Queensland

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH – MATTERS REFERRED BY STATES - where CDPP had consent of Commonwealth A-G under s 6(1)(m) DPP Act (Cth) to prosecute offences on indictment – where QDPP made an informed consent to CDPP carrying on prosecution – whether receipt of prosecutory authority under s 6(1)(m) supported by a Constitutional head of power – where prosecution of indicted offences related to matters within s 51(xx) Constitution

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – OTHER MATTERS - where administrative arrangement between QDPP and CDPP contemplating the prosecution of Queensland offences by CDPP –– whether QDPP can executively refer prosecutory power

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15A
Constitution 1901 (Cth), s 51(xx), s 51(xxxix), s 61
Corporations Law of Queensland (repealed), s 1000(1)(a), s 1000(1)(b), s 1311
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C, s 427(1), s 560(2)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth), s 6, s 9(6), s 15, s 17
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 (Qld), s 10(3), s 11(1)(a)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Fukusato [2002] QCA 29; CA No 6456 of 2001, 8 February 2002, considered
Pidoto v State of Victoria (1943) 68 CLR 87, referred to
R v Foley [2002] QCA 522; CA No 4007 of 2002, 29 November 2002, referred to
R v Holden (2001) 120 A Crim R 240, referred to
R v Hughes (2000) 202 CLR 535, considered
R v Webb [1960] Qd R 443, referred to
Vasta v Clare [2002] QSC 259; SC No 6969 of 2002, 30 August 2002, referred to

COUNSEL:

W Sofronoff QC, with A W…

Continue reading R v Dexter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dexter [2002] QCA 540
Case
[2002] QCA 540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Dexter arose from the conviction of the appellant on multiple charges under the Criminal Code of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) had the lawful authority to prosecute the appellant on behalf of the Commonwealth or the State of Queensland. The CDPP was instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and funded by them, but the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions (QDPP) had consented to the CDPP presenting the indictment. The appellant challenged the authority of the CDPP to prosecute in this context, questioning whether the CDPP had the requisite legal standing to indict and prosecute the appellant either under Commonwealth law or as an agent for the state.

The court considered the constitutional and statutory frameworks governing prosecutorial authority in Australia. It examined whether the CDPP's receipt of prosecutorial authority under section 6(1)(m) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act (Cth) was supported by a constitutional head of power, particularly in light of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's consent and the QDPP's informed consent. The court also addressed the administrative arrangement between the QDPP and the CDPP, assessing whether the QDPP could effectively refer prosecutorial power to the CDPP. The court concluded that the CDPP had lawful authority to prosecute the appellant both under the relevant statutes and the Constitution, as the prosecution related to matters within the Commonwealth's legislative powers under section 51(xx).

The court found that the CDPP's prosecutorial authority was legitimate and that the administrative arrangement between the QDPP and the CDPP was valid. The consent of the QDPP and the Commonwealth Attorney-General provided the necessary constitutional and statutory support for the CDPP to prosecute the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal and denied the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The decision underscores the complex interplay between Commonwealth and state prosecutorial powers and the importance of clear consent and authority in such matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to amend the grounds of appeal given;

2. Appeal dismissed;

3. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.