Legal Research
Cases
Renwick v Bell

Renwick v Bell

Case [2001] QCA 316 10 August 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316

PARTIES: JASON SCOTT RENWICK
(appellant/applicant)
v
MATTHEW TREVOR BELL
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S: CA No 34 of 2001
DC 2038 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 10 August 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 11 July 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:
1.Grant the application for leave to appeal.

2.Dismiss the appeal.

3.    The parties are invited to make submissions on costs in writing within seven days.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER GENERAL MATTERS - CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL CODES - whether s 7 of the Criminal Code has general application to all statutory offences - review of the case authority on the application of s 7 - discussion of the historical context in which the Criminal Code Act was enacted - whether s 2 of the Criminal Code Act and s 2, s 3, s 16 and s 36 of the Criminal Code indicate an intention that provisions of the Criminal Code were intended to apply only to offences under the Code - meaning of "simple offences" under the Criminal Code

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - OTHER CASES - whether s 7 applies to offences under s 104 of the Corrective Services Act - where the Corrective Services Act contains complementary offences by persons other than prisoners and by prisoners

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14(1)
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 93, s 104, s 104(10)(f)
Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), s 2
Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 7, s 16, s 36

Connolly v Meagher (1906) 3 CLR 682, considered
Giorgianni v The Queen (1984) 156 CLR 473, applied
Hunt v Maloney; ex parte Hunt [1959] QdR 164, considered
Jackson v Horne (1965) 114 CLR 82, considered
Kiely v R [1974] WAR 180, considered
Lewkowski v Lilly [2000] WASCA 14, considered
Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, applied
The Poultry Farmers Co-operation Society Limited v The            Grain Sorghum Marketing Board [1963] QWN 3, considered
R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart [1995] 2 QdR 77, considered
R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310, applied
Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157, referred to
Snow v Cooper (1944) 57 WALR 92, considered
West v Perrier; ex parte Perrier [1962] QWN 5, considered
West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112, considered
Wilson v Dobra (1955) 57 WALR 95, considered
Winton Transport Pty Ltd v Horne (1966) 115 CLR 322, considered
Young v Bryan [1962] Tas SR 323, referred to

COUNSEL: C Heaton for applicant
A W Moynihan for respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Davies JA that for the…

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 Renwick v Bell

Details

AGLC: Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316
Case: [2001] QCA 316
Decision Date: 10 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Renwick v Bell, the appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland District Court, which had found him guilty of an offence under section 104(10)(f) of the Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld). The appellant's argument centred on whether section 7 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) has general application to all statutory offences, including those under the Corrective Services Act. The crux of the appeal was whether the statutory framework intended for section 7 to apply to all offences, regardless of their source, or whether it was restricted to offences defined within the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with interpreting the scope of section 7 of the Criminal Code Act and determining its applicability to the statutory offence under the Corrective Services Act. The court examined relevant case law, including Mallan v Lee, R v Maroney, and Giorgianni v The Queen, to understand the historical context and legislative intent behind the Criminal Code Act. The court also considered whether the provisions of the Criminal Code were intended to apply only to offences under the Code, by examining sections 2, 3, 16, and 36 of the Criminal Code, alongside sections 2 and 7 of the Criminal Code Act.

The court concluded that the general language of section 7 of the Criminal Code Act was not intended to be limited to offences defined within the Criminal Code, but rather to apply to all statutory offences. This conclusion was drawn from the broader legislative intent and historical context of the Criminal Code Act. The court found that the appellant's offence under the Corrective Services Act was subject to the general application of section 7 of the Criminal Code, and that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in this regard. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was granted. The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Grant the application for leave to appeal.

2.Dismiss the appeal.

3. The parties are invited to make submissions on costs in writing within seven days.

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.

Actions

Citations

Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316

Most Recent Citation

Barkworth v Sidhu [2009] QCA 356

Cases Citing This Decision

Wilson v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 225
Citation 1 (Para 7)

…In Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316 at [16], Davies JA observed that the term simple offence in the Criminal Code was plainly intended to have the same meaning as that term bore in the Justices Act , the definition in that Act having survived the enactment of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).…
MKP Management Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda [2020] WASCA 130
Citation 2 (Para 4)

…lff CJ), 120 ‑ 121 (Hale J). [23] Hunt v Maloney; Ex Parte Hunt [1959] Qd R 164, 169 (Stanley J), 179 (Mack J), 184 (Hanger J). [24] Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316; [2002] 2 Qd R 326 [12] ‑ [28] (Davies JA; McMurdo P & Thomas JA agreeing). [25] Humphry v The Queen [2003] WASCA 53; (2003) 138 A Crim R 417 [47] (Mal…
QPS v Manning [2015] QMC 17
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…In Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316; [2002] 2 Qd R 326; 123 A Crim R 128, Davies JA made some interesting comments regarding section 36 of the Code and criminal responsibility especially at [10] “… section 36 which specifically applies the provisions of Chapter V of the Code to all persons charged with any criminal…
Barkworth v Sidhu [2009] QCA 356
Citation 4

…] HCA 65, cited R v Goulden [1993] 2 Qd R 534, considered R v WAF & SBN [2009] QCA 144, cited Renwick v Bell [2002] 2 Qd R 326; [2001] QCA 316, applied Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1; [1989] HCA 30, cited Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions [1971] AC 537, cited Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd…
Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…summary conviction, that is to say before a magistrate under the Justices Act , by fine, imprisonment or otherwise.[3] [3] Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316 at [16]. See also para [26] where it was said that the term in the Justices Act “applied generally to all offences against the statute law of Queensland.”…
Tomarchio v Pocock [2002] WASCA 156
Citation 6 (Para 6)

…In Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316, it was also argued that s 7 of the Criminal Code had no general application to all statutory offences. The above authorities were reviewed, and the Court of Appeal in Queensland concluded that s 7 did apply to all offences against the statute law of Queensland. See also Lewkowski…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310
Citation 1

…on Society Limited v The Grain Sorghum Marketing Board [1963] QWN 3, considered R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart [1995] 2 QdR 77, considered R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310, applied Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157, referred to Snow v Cooper (1944) 57 WALR 92, considered West v Perrier; ex parte Perrier [1962] QWN 5, cons…
Lewkowski v Lilley [2000] WASCA 14
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…eed in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, expressed conclusions consistent with previous authorities. [26][1995] 2 QdR 77. [27][2000] WASCA 14.…
Giorgianni v the Queen [1985] HCA 29
Citation 3

…iminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), s 2 Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 7, s 16, s 36 Connolly v Meagher (1906) 3 CLR 682, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1984) 156 CLR 473, applied Hunt v Maloney; ex parte Hunt [1959] QdR 164, considered Jackson v Horne (1965) 114 CLR 82, considered Kiely v R [1974] WAR 180, considered…
Winton Transport Pty Ltd v Horne [1966] HCA 51
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…f used a vehicle for the carriage of goods on a road without a permit. Reference was made to s 7 but not in a way which assists on this question. [24](1966) 115 CLR 322.…
Jackson v Horne [1965] HCA 44
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…n the circumstances constituted an offence by the company the appellant manager could properly be convicted of that offence by virtue of s 7.[23] [19](1965) 114 CLR 82. [20]Earlier, in Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157 the High Court had upheld an appeal and quashed a conviction under the State Transport Facilities Ac…
Simms v West [1961] HCA 62
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…offence by the company the appellant manager could properly be convicted of that offence by virtue of s 7.[23] [19](1965) 114 CLR 82. [20]Earlier, in Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157 the High Court had upheld an appeal and quashed a conviction under the State Transport Facilities Act which would have required the appli…
Mallan v Lee [1949] HCA 48
Citation 7

…sidered Jackson v Horne (1965) 114 CLR 82, considered Kiely v R [1974] WAR 180, considered Lewkowski v Lilly [2000] WASCA 14, considered Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, applied The Poultry Farmers Co-operation Society Limited v The Grain Sorghum Marketing Board [1963] QWN 3, considered R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart…
Connolly v Meagher [1906] HCA 20
Citation 8

…14(1) Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 93, s 104, s 104(10)(f) Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), s 2 Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 7, s 16, s 36 Connolly v Meagher (1906) 3 CLR 682, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1984) 156 CLR 473, applied Hunt v Maloney; ex parte Hunt [1959] QdR 164, considered Jackson v Horne (19…

Legislation Cited

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) 14(1)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld) 93
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld) 2
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) 7
1 mention (from Para 1)
Regulatory Offences Act 1985 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316
PARTIES:	JASON SCOTT RENWICK (appellant/applicant) v MATTHEW TREVOR BELL (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 34 of 2001 DC 2038 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 July 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1.Grant the application for leave to appeal. 2.Dismiss the appeal. 3. The parties are invited to make submissions on costs in writing within seven days.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER GENERAL MATTERS - CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL CODES - whether s 7 of the Criminal Code has general application to all statutory offences - review of the case authority on the application of s 7 - discussion of the historical context in which the Criminal Code Act was enacted - whether s 2 of the Criminal Code Act and s 2, s 3, s 16 and s 36 of the Criminal Code indicate an intention that provisions of the Criminal Code were intended to apply only to offences under the Code - meaning of "simple offences" under the Criminal Code CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - OTHER CASES - whether s 7 applies to offences under s 104 of the Corrective Services Act - where the Corrective Services Act contains complementary offences by persons other than prisoners and by prisoners Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14(1) Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 93, s 104, s 104(10)(f) Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), s 2 Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 7, s 16, s 36 Connolly v Meagher (1906) 3 CLR 682, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1984) 156 CLR 473, applied Hunt v Maloney; ex parte Hunt [1959] QdR 164, considered Jackson v Horne (1965) 114 CLR 82, considered Kiely v R [1974] WAR 180, considered Lewkowski v Lilly [2000] WASCA 14, considered Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, applied The Poultry Farmers Co-operation Society Limited v The Grain Sorghum Marketing Board [1963] QWN 3, considered R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart [1995] 2 QdR 77, considered R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310, applied Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157, referred to Snow v Cooper (1944) 57 WALR 92, considered West v Perrier; ex parte Perrier [1962] QWN 5, considered West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112, considered Wilson v Dobra (1955) 57 WALR 95, considered Winton Transport Pty Ltd v Horne (1966) 115 CLR 322, considered Young v Bryan [1962] Tas SR 323, referred to
COUNSEL:	C Heaton for applicant A W Moynihan for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent