R v Hutson

Case [2021] QDC 311

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hutson [2021] QDC 311

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON

FILE NO:

156/2021 and 161/2021

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 and 7 September 2021

JUDGE:

Williamson QC, DCJ

ORDER:

The parties are invited to submit minutes of orders to reflect the reasons for judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where defendant charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 – where defendant subpoenaed sign-in and sign-out records – whether there is a legitimate forensic purpose for production of the records – whether it is on the cards the records will materially assist the defendant’s case

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where defendant charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 – where defendant subpoenaed draft witness statements prepared by investigators – where draft statements not provided to, or seen by, witnesses – whether draft witness statements are subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where defendant charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 – where defendant subpoenaed an enforcement manual – whether there is a legitimate forensic purpose for production of the enforcement manual – whether it is on the cards the enforcement manual will materially assist the defendant’s case

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where defendant charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 – where defendant subpoenaed an enforcement manual – whether the enforcement manual is subject to public interest immunity

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where defendant charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 – where defendant subpoenaed an enforcement manual – whether parts of the enforcement manual are subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege

LEGISLATION:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, ss 19 and 171
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 33

CASES:

Alister & Ors v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404

Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Ltd (No 2) (2014) 312 ALR 403
Attorney-General for New South Wales v Chidgey (2008) 182 A Crim R 536
Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (2009) 174 FCR 547
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mitchell [2019] FCA 1484
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kinghorn (2020) 102 NSWLR 72
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674
Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Incorporated v Commissioner of Police (WA) (2008) 234 CLR 532
Hancock…

Continue reading R v Hutson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hutson [2021] QDC 311
Case
[2021] QDC 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hutson involved the defendant, Hutson, who was charged with 29 offences, including offences under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Hutson made several applications in relation to the disclosure of documents and materials to be used in the trial. The primary focus of these applications was on the production of specific documents, including sign-in and sign-out records, draft witness statements, an enforcement manual, and the consideration of claims of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity.

The legal issues before the court included whether the subpoenas served by Hutson served a legitimate forensic purpose and whether the documents were likely to materially assist his case. Additionally, the court had to determine if the draft witness statements were subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege since they had not been seen by the witnesses. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether parts of the enforcement manual were subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege and whether they were subject to public interest immunity.

The court held that the sign-in and sign-out records were unlikely to materially assist Hutson's case and therefore denied the application for their production. Regarding the draft witness statements, the court found that they were not subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege as they had not been prepared by or for legal advice. The court also ruled that parts of the enforcement manual were subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege, and that other parts were subject to public interest immunity. Consequently, the court ordered that only the non-privileged and non-immune parts of the enforcement manual be disclosed.

The parties were invited to submit minutes of orders to reflect the reasons for the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties are invited to submit minutes of orders to reflect the reasons for judgment.

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.