R v Rollason & Jenkins; ex parte - [2007] QCA 65

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rollason & Jenkins; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 65

PARTIES:

R
v
ROLLASON, John Leslie
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

R
v
JENKINS, Darren John
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

FILE NO/S:

CA No 14 of 2007
CA No 15 of 2007
SC No 475 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 668A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2007

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and Mackenzie J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The questions referred to the Court are answered as follows:
1. Was the learned judge correct in ruling that the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were statements of a witness for the purpose of s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) of the Criminal Code?
Yes
2. Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine whether the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were 'relevant to the proceeding' for the purpose of s 590AJ(2)(e) and (f) of the Criminal Code?
Yes

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES - SPECIFIC INTERPRETATIONS - where accused persons made application for disclosure of affidavits relied on by prosecution to secure telephone intercept warrants - where trial judge ordered disclosure pursuant to s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A), s 590AJ(2)(e) and 590AJ(2)(f) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) - whether trial judge proceeded on proper construction of s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) and s 590AJ(2)(e) and (f) of the Criminal Code1899 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AB(1), s 590AB(2), s590AH(2)(c)(i)(A), s 590AJ(2)(e), s 590AJ(2)(f), s 590AQ

Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370, distinguished

Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289, cited

R v Brown [1998] AC 367, cited

Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650, distinguished

COUNSEL:

G R Rice for the Attorney-General
A M Hoare for the respondent in CA No 14 of 2007
D C Shepherd for the respondent in CA No 15 of 2007

SOLICITORS:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney-General
North Law for the respondent in CA No 14 of 2007
Legal Aid (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 15 of 2007

THE COURT:
Since the commencement of Ch Div 3 of Ch 62 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld),[1] those in charge of the prosecution of an offence have been under a statutory obligation, imposed by s 590AB(1), "to ensure criminal proceedings are conducted fairly with the single aim of determining and establishing truth". A particular aspect of this fundamental obligation is the obligation, imposed by

s 590AB(2), to give the accused person disclosure of "all evidence the prosecution proposes to rely on in the proceeding" and "all things in the possession of the prosecution … that would tend to help the case for the accused person". These obligations are given specific effect by a number of further legislative commands…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rollason & Jenkins; ex parte and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QCA 65
Decision Date: 9 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rollason & Jenkins; ex parte involved an application by the accused persons for the disclosure of affidavits which the prosecution had relied upon to secure telephone intercept warrants. The applicants argued that the trial judge had erred in ordering the disclosure of these affidavits. The application was made to the court under sections 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A), 590AJ(2)(e), and 590AJ(2)(f) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The key legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the trial judge correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and whether the affidavits were properly considered as statements of a witness and relevant to the proceedings.

The court considered the arguments and examined the statutory provisions in question. The court noted that the interpretation of statutes is a matter of law and that the court must determine the meaning of the statutory language in its context. In interpreting the relevant sections, the court relied on the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) and referred to previous cases such as Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) and R v Brown. The court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the affidavits as statements of a witness for the purposes of section 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) of the Criminal Code and had correctly applied the relevant test to determine their relevance to the proceedings under sections 590AJ(2)(e) and 590AJ(2)(f). The court concluded that the trial judge's decision was in accordance with the law and that the affidavits were appropriately disclosed.

In light of the above, the court answered the referred questions as follows: first, the court found that the trial judge was correct in ruling that the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were statements of a witness for the purpose of section 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) of the Criminal Code. Second, the court confirmed that the trial judge applied the correct test to determine whether the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were relevant to the proceeding for the purposes of sections 590AJ(2)(e) and 590AJ(2)(f) of the Criminal Code. The court's determination upheld the trial judge's order for the disclosure of the affidavits.

Orders

Orders of the court

The questions referred to the Court are answered as follows:

1. Was the learned judge correct in ruling that the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were statements of a witness for the purpose of s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) of the Criminal Code?

Yes

2. Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine whether the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were 'relevant to the proceeding' for the purpose of s 590AJ(2)(e) and (f) of the Criminal Code?

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 Rollason & Jenkins; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 65
PARTIES:	R v ROLLASON, John Leslie (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND R v JENKINS, Darren John (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
FILE NO/S:	CA No 14 of 2007 CA No 15 of 2007 SC No 475 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s 668A Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2007
JUDGES:	Keane and Holmes JJA and Mackenzie J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The questions referred to the Court are answered as follows: *1. Was the learned judge correct in ruling that the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were statements of a witness for the purpose of s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) of the Criminal Code?* Yes 2. Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine whether the affidavits of Federal Agent Mellor were 'relevant to the proceeding' for the purpose of s 590AJ(2)(e) and (f) of the Criminal Code? Yes
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES - SPECIFIC INTERPRETATIONS - where accused persons made application for disclosure of affidavits relied on by prosecution to secure telephone intercept warrants - where trial judge ordered disclosure pursuant to s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A), s 590AJ(2)(e) and 590AJ(2)(f) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) - whether trial judge proceeded on proper construction of s 590AH(2)(c)(i)(A) and s 590AJ(2)(e) and (f) of the Criminal Code1899 (Qld) Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AB(1), s 590AB(2), s590AH(2)(c)(i)(A), s 590AJ(2)(e), s 590AJ(2)(f), s 590AQ Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370, distinguished Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289, cited R v Brown [1998] AC 367, cited Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650, distinguished
COUNSEL:	G R Rice for the Attorney-General A M Hoare for the respondent in CA No 14 of 2007 D C Shepherd for the respondent in CA No 15 of 2007
SOLICITORS:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney-General North Law for the respondent in CA No 14 of 2007 Legal Aid (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 15 of 2007