R v Mathews - [2012] QCA 298

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mathews [2012] QCA 298

PARTIES:

R
v
MATHEWS, Russell Gordon Haig
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 235 of 2012
CA No 272 of 2012
CA No 273 of 2012
CA No 274 of 2012
DC No 2121 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Applications for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
Applications for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The application to produce material and to adduce further evidence is refused.

2.    In CA No 235 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

3.    In CA No 272 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused.

4.    In CA No 273 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused.

5.    In CA No 274 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant is charged with four counts of using a carriage service in such a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive – where three days into the committal proceeding the matter was adjourned when the applicant advised he would not be appearing and was consulting a psychiatrist – where those charges presently remain before the Magistrates Court, awaiting completion – where the Court considered the applicant's conduct raised the issue of his fitness for trial and referred this issue to the District Court for determination – where the applicant submitted that the "whole proceeding be stayed permanently as a matter of Qualified Privilege" and that various District Court judges recuse themselves – where the applicant now challenges the decisions of the District Court judges not to recuse themselves and procedural orders made at the mention hearings – whether applications should be granted

Higgins v Comans (2005) 153 A Crim R 565; [2005] QCA 234, cited
Mathews v Commissioner of Police[2011] QCA 368, related
Mathews v Morgan & Ors [2005] QSC 222, related
Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S R Hunter for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Russell Mathews, has four related applications before this Court. It is necessary to understand the background to them before considering their merits.

He has been charged with four counts against s 474.17(1) Criminal Code (Cth), that is, using a carriage service, namely, Telstra Big Pond, in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive. The charges allegedly occurred at various times…

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 Mathews

Details

AGLC: R v Mathews [2012] QCA 298
Case: [2012] QCA 298
Decision Date: 2 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mathews, the applicant is charged with four counts of using a carriage service in a manner that would be considered menacing, harassing, or offensive by reasonable persons. The matter was adjourned three days into the committal proceeding when the applicant informed the court that he would not be appearing and was consulting a psychiatrist. The charges remain pending before the Magistrates Court. The applicant's conduct raised the issue of his fitness to stand trial, which was referred to the District Court for determination. The applicant sought to have the entire proceeding permanently stayed on the basis of Qualified Privilege and requested that various District Court judges recuse themselves. The applicant now challenges the District Court judges' decisions not to recuse themselves and the procedural orders made at the mention hearings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the application to produce material and adduce further evidence should be granted, and whether the applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time in various matters should be approved. The court considered the applicant's submissions and the merits of each application. The applicant's arguments regarding Qualified Privilege and the recusal of judges were also examined.

The court found that the application to produce material and adduce further evidence was not warranted, and the applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time were refused. The court considered that the applicant's claims of Qualified Privilege did not apply, and that there was no valid reason for the District Court judges to recuse themselves. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the need to ensure the efficient administration of justice. The court concluded that the applications should not be granted, and upheld the decisions of the District Court judges.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application to produce material and adduce further evidence, and to deny the applications for leave to appeal and extensions of time in the specified matters. The court's decision upheld the procedural integrity of the proceedings and maintained the schedule for the determination of the applicant's fitness to stand trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to produce material and to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. In CA No 235 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

3. In CA No 272 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused.

4. In CA No 273 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused.

5. In CA No 274 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is 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.

CITATION:	R v Mathews [2012] QCA 298
PARTIES:	R v MATHEWS, Russell Gordon Haig (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 235 of 2012 CA No 272 of 2012 CA No 273 of 2012 CA No 274 of 2012 DC No 2121 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Applications for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal) Applications for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application to produce material and to adduce further evidence is refused. 2. In CA No 235 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused. 3. In CA No 272 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused. 4. In CA No 273 of 2012, the application for an extension of time is refused. 5. In CA No 274 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant is charged with four counts of using a carriage service in such a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive – where three days into the committal proceeding the matter was adjourned when the applicant advised he would not be appearing and was consulting a psychiatrist – where those charges presently remain before the Magistrates Court, awaiting completion – where the Court considered the applicant's conduct raised the issue of his fitness for trial and referred this issue to the District Court for determination – where the applicant submitted that the "whole proceeding be stayed permanently as a matter of Qualified Privilege" and that various District Court judges recuse themselves – where the applicant now challenges the decisions of the District Court judges not to recuse themselves and procedural orders made at the mention hearings – whether applications should be granted Higgins v Comans (2005) 153 A Crim R 565; [2005] QCA 234, cited Mathews v Commissioner of Police[2011] QCA 368, related Mathews v Morgan & Ors [2005] QSC 222, related Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S R Hunter for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent