R v Morrison - [2010] QSC 446

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morrison [2010] QSC 446

PARTIES:

R
(respondent)
v
PETER JAMES MORRISON
(applicant)

FILE NO:

704 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Section 590AA application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 & 12 November 2010

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

The applications are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDURE – CONSENT OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER OFFICIAL TO PROSECUTION – where proceedings for an offence of conspiracy must not be commenced without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions – where the Director of Public Prosecutions consented to a proceeding for conspiracy to be commenced against four alleged co-conspirators – where three out of the four alleged conspirators were committed to stand trial for the offence of conspiracy – where indictment presented against those three persons – whether the indictment should be quashed on the ground that the prosecution failed to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the commencement of proceedings for the offence with which the applicant is charged

CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – WARRANTS – Search warrants – Issue and validity – where each person who issued the warrant was authorised to do so – whether each warrant was invalid because it failed to include the name of the issuing officer and failed to identify the issuing officer with sufficient detail to enable persons adversely affected by it to quickly ascertain that the warrant was validly issued

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3E, 3C, 86
Criminal Code (Qld), s 11.5(8)
Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 (Qld), ss 15, 19, 29
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 150 and 151

Berwin v Donohoe (1915) 21 CLR 1, cited

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, cited

Dever v Creevey, ex parte Creevey [1993] 1 Qd R 232, applied
Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317, considered
Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 36, cited
Oke v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2007) 168 A Crim R 503, considered
Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69 at 95, applied
R v AP [2003] QCA 445, cited
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, cited
R v Ongley (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 116, cited
R v Ousley (1996) 87 A Crim R 326, cited
R v Tillett; Ex parte Newton (1969) 14 FLR 101, cited
Seeter Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (2004) 210 ALR 437, considered
Traveland Pty Ltd v Doherty (1982) 63 FLR 41 at 48, cited

COUNSEL:

A M Nelson for the applicant
G P Long SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilfoyle Solicitors for the applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

An indictment for the offence of conspiracy was presented in this Court on

3 August…

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 Morrison

Details

AGLC: R v Morrison [2010] QSC 446
Case: [2010] QSC 446
Decision Date: 6 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morrison, the defendants challenged the legality of their prosecution and the validity of search warrants used against them. The proceedings arose from allegations of conspiracy to commit an offence, which required the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the commencement of any prosecution. Despite this requirement, the defendants argued that the Director's consent was not properly obtained for the prosecution of each defendant. Additionally, the defendants questioned the validity of search warrants executed during the investigation, claiming that the warrants were defective because they did not include the names of the issuing officers or did not sufficiently identify them.

The court had to determine whether the prosecution was lawfully initiated in the absence of the Director's consent for each defendant, and whether the search warrants were valid despite the alleged deficiencies. The court examined the statutory requirements for obtaining the Director's consent and the necessity of such consent for each defendant. It also assessed the legal criteria for the validity of search warrants, focusing on whether the lack of identifying details rendered the warrants invalid.

The court found that the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent was not strictly required for each defendant individually, as long as consent was obtained for the overall conspiracy prosecution. The court further held that the search warrants were valid despite the omissions in the details of the issuing officers. The court reasoned that the statutory requirements for warrants were met in substance, even if there were minor technical deficiencies. Consequently, the applications to quash the indictment and to declare the search warrants invalid were dismissed.

The court concluded by refusing the defendants' applications, allowing the prosecution to proceed and affirming the validity of the search warrants. This decision upheld the legal framework for the initiation of conspiracy prosecutions and the issuance of search warrants, emphasising the importance of compliance with statutory requirements while also acknowledging the practicalities of law enforcement processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications are 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 Morrison [2010] QSC 446
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v PETER JAMES MORRISON (applicant)
FILE NO:	704 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Section 590AA application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	6 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 & 12 November 2010
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	The applications are refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDURE – CONSENT OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER OFFICIAL TO PROSECUTION – where proceedings for an offence of conspiracy must not be commenced without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions – where the Director of Public Prosecutions consented to a proceeding for conspiracy to be commenced against four alleged co-conspirators – where three out of the four alleged conspirators were committed to stand trial for the offence of conspiracy – where indictment presented against those three persons – whether the indictment should be quashed on the ground that the prosecution failed to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the commencement of proceedings for the offence with which the applicant is charged CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – WARRANTS – Search warrants – Issue and validity – where each person who issued the warrant was authorised to do so – whether each warrant was invalid because it failed to include the name of the issuing officer and failed to identify the issuing officer with sufficient detail to enable persons adversely affected by it to quickly ascertain that the warrant was validly issued
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3E, 3C, 86 Criminal Code (Qld), s 11.5(8) Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 (Qld), ss 15, 19, 29 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 150 and 151 Berwin v Donohoe (1915) 21 CLR 1, cited Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, cited Dever v Creevey, ex parte Creevey [1993] 1 Qd R 232, applied Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317, considered Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 36, cited Oke v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2007) 168 A Crim R 503, considered Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69 at 95, applied R v AP [2003] QCA 445, cited R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, cited R v Ongley (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 116, cited R v Ousley (1996) 87 A Crim R 326, cited R v Tillett; Ex parte Newton (1969) 14 FLR 101, cited Seeter Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (2004) 210 ALR 437, considered Traveland Pty Ltd v Doherty (1982) 63 FLR 41 at 48, cited
COUNSEL:	A M Nelson for the applicant G P Long SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilfoyle Solicitors for the applicant Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent