Robertson v Robertson

Case [2024] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robertson v Robertson [2024] QCA 92

PARTIES:

ROBERTSON, Craig Victor
(applicant)
v
ROBERTSON, Peter Craig
(first respondent)
ROBERTSON, Mark Harold
(second respondent)
ROBERTSON, Todd Edward
(third respondent)
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 120 of 2023
DC No 224 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – [2023] QDC 106 (Holliday KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders:15 May 2024
Date of Publication of Reasons: 24 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2024

JUDGES:

Bond JA and Crow and Crowley JJ

ORDERS:

Date of Orders:15 May 2024

1.   Each of the following certificates is invalid:

(a)   The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Mark Harold Robertson;

(b)  The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Peter Craig Robertson; and

(c)   The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Todd Edward Robertson.

2.   No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWER OF COURT ON APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the fourth respondent prosecuted charges in the Magistrates Court against the first, second and third respondents for alleged offending against the applicant – where the fourth respondent sought and failed to obtain an adjournment when the charges came on for trial – where the Magistrate then proceeded to dismiss the charges without any hearing on the merits – where the Magistrate also ordered certificates of dismissal to issue in respect of the dismissed charges pursuant to s 149 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the applicant contended he was aggrieved by the orders because such certificates could be pleaded in bar of the private prosecution which he intended to commence against the first, second and third defendants – where the primary judge found that the applicant had no right of appeal to the District Court because he was not a person aggrieved by the orders – where the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to overturn that decision – where it was common ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue the certificates because there had been no hearing on the merits – where it would follow that the certificates were invalid – where the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to make declarations or grant injunctions to prevent invalid certificates being acted upon – where there was little utility in considering the merits of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal or of the merits of the appeal – where the better course was resolve the dispute between the parties by making a declaration as to the invalidity of the certificates

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 144, s 145, s 149, s 222

Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) NSWLR 421; [2004] NSWCA 394, cited
Commissioner of Police v Antoniolli[2021] QCA 237, followed
Lynch v Commissioner of Police (2022) 11 QR…

Continue reading Robertson v Robertson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robertson v Robertson [2024] QCA 92
Case
[2024] QCA 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robertson v Robertson involved the applicant seeking to appeal a decision made by the primary judge, who found that the applicant did not have the right to appeal to the District Court. The applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, had contended that he was aggrieved by the dismissal of charges against three respondents and the subsequent issuance of certificates of dismissal. The applicant intended to use these certificates as a bar in a private prosecution he planned to bring against the respondents. The primary judge's decision was based on the premise that the applicant was not a person aggrieved by the orders made by the Magistrate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had standing to appeal the primary judge's decision, and if not, whether the court had the jurisdiction to declare the certificates of dismissal invalid. The court considered that since the certificates were issued without a hearing on the merits, they were inherently invalid, and the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to declare their invalidity and prevent them from being acted upon. The court also noted that the validity of the certificates could be determined without delving into the merits of the applicant's appeal or the primary judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal found that there was little utility in considering the merits of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal or of the merits of the appeal itself. Instead, the court determined that the better course of action was to resolve the dispute by making a declaration as to the invalidity of the certificates. The court exercised its jurisdiction to declare the certificates invalid, which would prevent them from being used in any future proceedings by the applicant. This decision effectively precluded the applicant from using the invalid certificates as a bar to his intended private prosecution.

On 15 May 2024, the Court issued orders declaring the invalidity of the certificates issued on 16 November 2021 in respect of the three respondents. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders:15 May 2024

1. Each of the following certificates is invalid:

(a) The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Mark Harold Robertson;

(b) The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Peter Craig Robertson; and

(c) The certificate dated 16 November 2021 issued in respect of Todd Edward Robertson.

2. 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.