R v Juckes; Ex parte - [2017] QCA 33

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Juckes; Blomeley; Hutchins; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 33

PARTIES:

R
v
JUCKES, Arthur Chamberlain
(first respondent)
BLOMELEY, Mark Brenton
(second respondent)
HUTCHINS, Joshua Graeme
(third respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 230 of 2016
DC No 487 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 668A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Unreported, 5 August 2016, Harrison DCJ

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

15 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2017

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. Question: “Does the District Court of Queensland have the power pursuant to s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail?”

Answer: “Yes”.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – CASE STATED AND REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF LAW – where the respondents are to be tried on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company with a circumstance of aggravation in the District Court – where one defendant is also to be tried on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with an additional circumstance of aggravation – where pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code a judge of that court ruled that because the expression “the court” was defined for the purposes of the Justices Act to mean the Magistrates Court, the District Court lacked power to transfer a matter to the Supreme Court – where the Attorney-General refers to the Court of Appeal under s 668A Criminal Code (Qld) for its consideration and opinion the question of whether the District Court have the power to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail – whether the reference is of a question of law of general application and importance

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32A
Acts Interpretation Act Amendment Act 1991 (Qld), s 26
Criminal Code (Qld), s 339(3), s 590AA, s 668A
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 60, s 61
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 129
Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7(1)

R v Kay; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2016] QCA 269, cited
R v NP; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] 1 Qd R 368; [2012] QCA 116, cited
R v PV; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] 2 Qd R 325; [2004] QCA 494, cited
R v SAP; ex parte Attorney-General [2006] 1 Qd R 367; [2005] QCA 284, cited

COUNSEL:

M R Byrne QC, with S J Hedge, for the appellant
J J Allen QC for the first and second respondent
No…

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 Juckes; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Juckes; Ex parte [2017] QCA 33
Case: [2017] QCA 33
Decision Date: 15 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the respondents are facing charges in the District Court of Queensland, including one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while in company, with an additional aggravating circumstance. One of the respondents is also charged with an additional count of assault occasioning bodily harm with an aggravating circumstance. A judge of the District Court ruled that the court lacked the power to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court because the term "the court" as defined in the Justices Act referred to the Magistrates Court. This ruling was made pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code. The Attorney-General subsequently referred a question to the Court of Appeal under section 668A of the Criminal Code, seeking an opinion on whether the District Court has the power to remand a defendant for trial or sentencing before another proper court and to grant or enlarge bail in appropriate circumstances.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court of Queensland has the power to remand a defendant for trial or sentencing before another proper court and to grant or enlarge bail in appropriate circumstances, as per section 129 of the Justices Act 1886. The Court of Appeal examined the relevant statutory provisions and found that the District Court does indeed possess the authority to remand a defendant to another proper court for trial or sentencing and to grant or enlarge bail in appropriate cases. The Court of Appeal concluded that the reference by the Attorney-General was indeed a question of law of general application and importance.

The Court of Appeal answered the question referred by the Attorney-General in the affirmative. It found that the District Court of Queensland does have the power to remand a defendant to take their trial or for sentence before another and proper court, as well as to grant or enlarge bail in appropriate circumstances. This conclusion was based on the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and their understanding of the scope of the District Court's powers under the Justices Act 1886. The Court of Appeal's decision provides clarity on the extent of the District Court's authority in this matter, which will be significant for future cases involving similar charges and circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Question: “Does the District Court of Queensland have the power pursuant to s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail?”

Answer: “Yes”.

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:	R v Juckes; Blomeley; Hutchins; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 33
PARTIES:	R v JUCKES, Arthur Chamberlain (first respondent) BLOMELEY, Mark Brenton (second respondent) HUTCHINS, Joshua Graeme (third respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 230 of 2016 DC No 487 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s 668A Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Unreported, 5 August 2016, Harrison DCJ
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	15 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. Question: “Does the District Court of Queensland have the power pursuant to s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail?” Answer: “Yes”.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – CASE STATED AND REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF LAW – where the respondents are to be tried on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company with a circumstance of aggravation in the District Court – where one defendant is also to be tried on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with an additional circumstance of aggravation – where pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code a judge of that court ruled that because the expression “the court” was defined for the purposes of the Justices Act to mean the Magistrates Court, the District Court lacked power to transfer a matter to the Supreme Court – where the Attorney-General refers to the Court of Appeal under s 668A Criminal Code (Qld) for its consideration and opinion the question of whether the District Court have the power to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail – whether the reference is of a question of law of general application and importance Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32A Acts Interpretation Act Amendment Act 1991 (Qld), s 26 Criminal Code (Qld), s 339(3), s 590AA, s 668A District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 60, s 61 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 129 Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7(1) R v Kay; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2016] QCA 269, cited R v NP; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] 1 Qd R 368; [2012] QCA 116, cited R v PV; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] 2 Qd R 325; [2004] QCA 494, cited R v SAP; ex parte Attorney-General [2006] 1 Qd R 367; [2005] QCA 284, cited
COUNSEL:	M R Byrne QC, with S J Hedge, for the appellant J J Allen QC for the first and second respondent No…