SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Re Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld) [2003] QCA 249
PARTIES:
S
(applicant/respondent)
v
MC
(first respondent/first appellant)
L
(second respondent/second appellant)
C
(third respondent/third appellant)S
(applicant/respondent)
v
M
(respondent/appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3942 of 2003
Appeal No 4051 of 2003DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 May 2003
JUDGES:
Williams JA and White and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
In appeal 3942 of 2003:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Declare that s 30 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 is invalid as being beyond the power of the Queensland Parliament;
(iii) Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of 7 April 2003;
(iv) Order that the application be remitted to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court to be heard and determined according to law;
(v) Order that the respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed.In appeal 4051 of 2003:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Declare that s 30 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 is invalid as being beyond the power of the Queensland Parliament;
(iii) Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of 11 April 2003;
(iv) Order that the application be remitted to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court to be heard and determined according to law;
(v) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed.CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION – where s 30 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 directs the court to hear and determine an application for an order restraining property from being dealt with in the absence of any interested party under certain circumstances – whether this provision so interferes with the essential character of the exercise of judicial power as to make the provision constitutionally invalid
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (Cth), s 71
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39, s 39A, s 68
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth), s 44(7A)(b)
Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 57, s 58
Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld), s 4, s 13, s 26, s 28, s 30, s 31, s 32, s 33, s 35, s 36, s 37, s 38, s 39, s 40, s 45, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 50, s 52
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 667(2)(a)Bonaker v Evans (1850) 16 QB 162, discussed
re Cannon [1999] 1 Qd R 247, cited
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1, discussed
The Commonwealth v Queensland (1975) 134 CLR 298, discussed
Craig v Kanssen [1943] KB 256, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Toro-Martinez (1993) 33 NSWLR 82, discussed
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, discussed
Continue reading Re Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 [2003] QCA 249
- Case
- [2003] QCA 249
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court was required to decide whether section 30 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 was constitutionally valid. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether this provision so fundamentally altered the exercise of judicial power as to render it invalid. The appellants argued that the absence of any interested party in proceedings under section 30 meant that the court would not be exercising judicial power in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and due process, as enshrined in the Constitution.
In its decision, the Court found that section 30 of the Act was indeed unconstitutional. The reasoning was that the provision permitted the court to make significant legal determinations affecting property rights without the presence of a party directly affected by the decision. This, the Court held, compromised the essential character of the exercise of judicial power. As a result, the section was declared invalid as it exceeded the legislative power of the Queensland Parliament. Consequently, the orders of the Supreme Court were set aside, and the applications were to be remitted for further hearing according to law. Additionally, the Court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
In appeal 3942 of 2003:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Declare that s 30 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 is invalid as being beyond the power of the Queensland Parliament;
(iii) Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of 7 April 2003;
(iv) Order that the application be remitted to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court to be heard and determined according to law;
(v) Order that the respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed.
In appeal 4051 of 2003:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Declare that s 30 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 is invalid as being beyond the power of the Queensland Parliament;
(iii) Set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of 11 April 2003;
(iv) Order that the application be remitted to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court to be heard and determined according to law;
(v) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed.
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.