Legal Research
Cases
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 8)

R v Hutson (Ruling No. 8)

Case [2025] QDCPR 8 17 January 2025

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: PARTIES:

FILE NO: DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

R v Hutson (Ruling No. 8) [2025] QDCPR 8
THE KING
v
JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON
(Defendant)
156 of 2021
Criminal
Pre-trial applications pursuant to s. 590AA of the Criminal Code.
Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON: Order delivered 17 January 2025.
Reasons published 5 March 2025.

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 18 and 19 December 2024. JUDGE: Byrne KC DCJ

ORDER: 1. The defendant’s application for a permanent stay of

proceedings is refused.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS – where the defendant faces trial on charges pursuant to sections 184(1) and 184(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sections 140 and 408C(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) - where the defendant applies for a permanent stay of proceedings - where the defendant submits that the delay in the proceedings and the conduct of the investigation and prosecution warrants a permanent stay of proceedings – whether a permanent stay of proceedings is appropriate in the circumstances.

LEGISLATION: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001
(Cth), s. 19.
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 199A. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s. 19B. Criminal Code (Qld), s. 632.
Evidence Act 1977, s. 132BA.

CASES:Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 265.
DPP (Cth) v Kinghorn (2020) 102 NSWLR 72.
Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237.
GLJ v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 97 ALJR 857.
Hutson v ASIC [2022] QSC 68.
Hutson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Anor [2022] QSC 243.
Hutson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Anor [2023] QCA 167.
Hutson v G8 Education Limited [2024] QSC 319.
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23.
Johannsen and Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions
[1996] QCA 111.
Marwan v Director of Public Prosecutions (2019) 278 A Crim R 592.
Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456.
Moubarak by his tutor Coorey v Holt (2910) 100 NSWLR 218.
R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337.
R v Dodds and H; ex parte A-G [1996] QCA 402.
R v Drozd (1993) 67 A Crim R 112.
R v Ernst [2020] QCA 150.
R v Hutson [2021] QDCPR 78.
R v Hutson [2021] QDC 311.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 3) [2023] QDCPR 114.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 4) [2024] QDCPR 65.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 5) [2025] QDCPR 1.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 6) [2025] QDCPR 2.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7) [2025] QDCPR 3.
R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735.
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251.
Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47.
Strickland v DPP (Cth) (2018) 266 CLR 325.
The Queen v Edwards (2009) 83 ALJR 717.
The Queen…

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 Hutson (Ruling No. 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Hutson (Ruling No. 8) [2025] QDCPR 8
Case: [2025] QDCPR 8
Decision Date: 17 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of Queensland, the defendant Jennifer Joan Hutson applied for a permanent stay of proceedings against charges related to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Criminal Code (Qld). The application followed several hearings and judicial reviews, with the defendant arguing that the delay in proceedings and the conduct of the investigation and prosecution warranted a permanent stay. The court outlined the principles for a permanent stay, emphasizing it is a remedy of last resort and is only granted in extreme cases where the continuation of the proceedings would be unjustifiably oppressive and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The defendant's submissions included the manner of the investigation, the late decision to call additional witnesses, and the refusal to waive privilege over numerous draft statements. The court found that while some aspects of the investigation were not ideal, they did not rise to the level of unfairness required to justify a permanent stay. The court also considered the defendant's ability to mount a credible defence despite the deficiencies in the investigation and the late addition of witnesses. Ultimately, the court refused the defendant’s application for a permanent stay of proceedings.

17 January 2025.

Orders