SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Moti [2010] QCA 178
PARTIES:
R
v
MOTI, Julian Ronald
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
CA No 14 of 2010
SC No 1097 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Reference under s 669A Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 July 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 June 2010
JUDGES:
Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
The stay be set aside
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – ABUSE OF PROCESS – IN GENERAL – where primary judge stayed an indictment charging the respondent with seven counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under 16 whilst outside Australia – where primary judge found that financial support given to witnesses by the Australian Federal Police amounted to an abuse of process – whether payments were an abuse of process – whether stay of proceedings should be set aside
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – POINTS AND OBJECTIONS NOT TAKEN BELOW – WHEN NOT ALLOWED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL – QUESTIONS NOT RAISED ON PLEADINGS OR IN ARGUMENT – GENERALLY – where appellant’s appeal brought under s 669A(1A) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where respondent lodged a notice of contention – whether respondent could advance additional arguments supporting the stay of proceedings
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where respondent deported from the Solomon Islands to Australia – where respondent previously the Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands – where respondent had been charged with similar offences in Vanuatu, but was discharged in respect of those offences – where respondent argued his removal from the Solomon Islands to Australia amounted to a disguised extradition – where respondent argued primary judge should have found the investigation was politically motivated and attended by delay – where respondent argued that the Australian charges raised the same issues as the charges brought in Vanuatu in respect of which he had been discharged – where respondent argued that late disclosure by the prosecution of its communications with the witnesses who received payments was vexatious – whether these matters, individually or collectively, amounted to oppression of the respondent – whether a permanent stay of proceedings should have been granted
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth), s 44
Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth), reg 9
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 49A
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA, s 669ACrampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited
David Syme & Co Ltd v Lloyd (1985) 1 NSWLR 416, cited
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; [1998] HCA 21, cited
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46
Continue reading R v Moti
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Moti [2010] QCA 178
- Case
- [2010] QCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the payments made to witnesses by the Australian Federal Police amounted to an abuse of process and whether the stay of proceedings should be set aside. The court also considered whether the respondent could advance additional arguments supporting the stay of proceedings, despite not having raised them before the primary judge. Furthermore, the court examined whether the respondent's removal from the Solomon Islands to Australia amounted to a disguised extradition, whether the investigation was politically motivated and attended by delay, and whether the late disclosure by the prosecution of its communications with the witnesses who received payments was vexatious. These matters were considered to determine whether they, individually or collectively, amounted to oppression of the respondent and warranted a permanent stay of proceedings.
The court found that the primary judge erred in law by staying the proceedings due to an abuse of process. The court held that the payments made to witnesses did not constitute an abuse of process. The court further found that the respondent could not advance additional arguments supporting the stay of proceedings, as they had not been raised before the primary judge. The court also held that the respondent's removal from the Solomon Islands to Australia did not amount to a disguised extradition and that the investigation was not politically motivated or attended by delay. Finally, the court found that the late disclosure by the prosecution of its communications with the witnesses who received payments was not vexatious. As such, the court set aside the stay of proceedings and ordered that the trial proceed.
The court's final orders were that the stay of proceedings be set aside and that the trial proceed. The court held that the primary judge had erred in law by staying the proceedings due to an abuse of process and that the respondent could not advance additional arguments supporting the stay of proceedings. The court found that the payments made to witnesses did not constitute an abuse of process and that the respondent's removal from the Solomon Islands to Australia did not amount to a disguised extradition. The court further held that the investigation was not politically motivated or attended by delay and that the late disclosure by the prosecution of its communications with the witnesses who received payments was not vexatious. Consequently, the stay of proceedings was set aside, and the trial was ordered to proceed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The stay be set aside
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.