Re HZX - [2024] QSC 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re HZX [2024] QSC 168

PARTIES:

HZX

(Applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9063 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made 2 August 2024, reasons delivered 6 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2024

JUDGE:

Bowskill CJ

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, leave to file the application seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is refused.

2. Relief in the nature of a writ of certiorari is granted, in relation to the decisions of the magistrate made on 24 June 2024 to issue warrants pursuant to s 28A of the Bail Act 1980 and s 389(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and those decisions are set aside.

3. The defendant, HZX, is granted bail in terms of the separate bail order made by Bowskill CJ on 2 August 2024.

4. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – where the applicant was charged with criminal offences in the name P – where the applicant was granted bail in her married name, H – where the applicant’s bail was forfeited and warrants issued for her arrest on the basis of the applicant’s failure to appear – where the applicant was in fact present in court but would only refer to herself by reference to her married surname, H – whether the magistrate was correct to conclude that the applicant had failed to appear – whether the court had the power to order the warrants to issue for the arrest of the applicant

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 6, s 28A
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 41
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 389(1)(b)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15, r 590, r 592

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Turner [2015] QSC 298
Hainaut v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 223
Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187
Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531
R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

COUNSEL:
HZX, by video, appeared for herself

H Ward, by telephone, appeared for herself
G Elmore for Queensland Police Service

N Miranda (solicitor) for the Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services

SOLICITORS:
Queensland Police Service Legal Services, for Queensland Police Service

Crown Law for the Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services

This matter was dealt with in the applications list on Friday, 2 August 2024. At the end of the hearing, I made orders in the terms set out above, as well as an order under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) for the release of HZX from custody. These are my reasons for making the orders and granting HZX bail.
HZX is charged with murder (on 29 December 2022) and with failing to apply to have the birth of her child registered (on 12 December 2022). It is not clear when she was charged, but according to…

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 Re HZX

Details

AGLC: Re HZX [2024] QSC 168
Case: [2024] QSC 168
Decision Date: 6 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re HZX, the applicant was charged with criminal offences in the name P. Despite being granted bail in her married name, H, her bail was subsequently forfeited and warrants were issued for her arrest due to an alleged failure to appear in court. The applicant was, in fact, present in court but refused to acknowledge her presence by referring to herself by her married name, H. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the magistrate was correct in concluding that the applicant had failed to appear in court and whether the court had the power to order the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the applicant.

The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the applicant had failed to appear, as she was indeed present in court but had chosen not to acknowledge her presence by her married name. Furthermore, the court held that it possessed the authority to issue a writ of certiorari to set aside the magistrate's decision to issue the warrants. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the principle that the decision to issue arrest warrants was an error in law, given that the applicant was present in court and had a reasonable basis for her refusal to acknowledge her presence by her married name.

Consequently, the court granted relief in the form of a writ of certiorari, setting aside the magistrate's decisions made on 24 June 2024 to issue warrants. The court also refused leave to file an application seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. In terms of the relief granted, the applicant was granted bail in accordance with the separate bail order made by Bowskill CJ on 2 August 2024. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, leave to file the application seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is refused.

2. Relief in the nature of a writ of certiorari is granted, in relation to the decisions of the magistrate made on 24 June 2024 to issue warrants pursuant to s 28A of the Bail Act 1980 and s 389(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and those decisions are set aside.

3. The defendant, HZX, is granted bail in terms of the separate bail order made by Bowskill CJ on 2 August 2024.

4. No order as to costs.

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:	Re HZX [2024] QSC 168
PARTIES:	HZX (Applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 9063 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made 2 August 2024, reasons delivered 6 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 August 2024
JUDGE:	Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to r 15 of the **Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, leave to file the application seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is refused. 2. Relief in the nature of a writ of certiorari is granted, in relation to the decisions of the magistrate made on 24 June 2024 to issue warrants pursuant to s 28A of the Bail Act 1980 and s 389(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and those decisions are set aside. 3. The defendant, HZX, is granted bail in terms of the separate bail order made by Bowskill CJ on 2 August 2024. 4. No order as to costs.**
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – where the applicant was charged with criminal offences in the name P – where the applicant was granted bail in her married name, H – where the applicant’s bail was forfeited and warrants issued for her arrest on the basis of the applicant’s failure to appear – where the applicant was in fact present in court but would only refer to herself by reference to her married surname, H – whether the magistrate was correct to conclude that the applicant had failed to appear – whether the court had the power to order the warrants to issue for the arrest of the applicant Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 6, s 28A Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 41 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 389(1)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15, r 590, r 592 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Turner [2015] QSC 298 Hainaut v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 223 Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216
COUNSEL:	HZX, by video, appeared for herself H Ward, by telephone, appeared for herself G Elmore for Queensland Police Service N Miranda (solicitor) for the Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services
SOLICITORS:	Queensland Police Service Legal Services, for Queensland Police Service Crown Law for the Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services