Scott v FC - [2016] QSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott v FC [2016] QSC 178

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN SCOTT

(applicant)

v
FC

(respondent)

FILE NO:

SC No 5136 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

22 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2016

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

1.   Being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the applicant on 20 May 2016, the respondent be imprisoned for eight months such imprisonment to be served wholly within a corrective services facility.

2.   The following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked “not to be opened except by order of the court”:

(a)   Originating Application dated and filed 23 May 2016;

(b)   Certificate of Contempt dated 20 May 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016;

(c)    Affidavit of Ian Galpin sworn 8 June 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016;

(d)   Outline of submissions of the applicant dated 8 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016; and

(e)   Outline of submissions of the respondent dated 18 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW – EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION – where the respondent refused to answer a question in terms of the certificate of contempt of the applicant – where the respondent does not contest that he is in contempt – where the contempt occurred in the context of a major crime investigation – where the respondent was not the principal target of the inquiry – assessment of appropriate term of imprisonment

Crime and Corruption Act 2001, s 176, s 180(3), s 197(5), s 198(4)(c), s 199, s 199(8B), s 199(8F)

Callanan v F (unreported, Byrne SJA, 16 February 2010), cited
O’Connor v CD [2016] QSC 37, considered
O’Connor v OP [2016] QSC 38, cited

O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, considered
O’Connor v Witness I [2014] QSC 82, considered
R v Freeman [1998] QCA 462, cited
Scott v M (unreported, Boddice J, 29 August 2011), considered
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, applied

COUNSEL:

B J Power for the applicant

S L Kissick for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crime and Corruption Commission for the applicant

Fallu McMillan Lawyers for the respondent

This is an application to punish the respondent for contempt of the applicant, a presiding officer at a Crime and Corruption Commission hearing. The contempt alleged pursuant to s 176 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 is that the respondent refused to answer a question in terms of the certificate of contempt of the applicant dated 20 May 2016. The respondent admits that he is in contempt and does not argue against a finding by me that he is in contempt beyond reasonable doubt, the necessary standard.
The contempt occurred…

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 Scott v FC

Details

AGLC: Scott v FC [2016] QSC 178
Case: [2016] QSC 178
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent in Scott v FC was charged with contempt of court for refusing to answer a question pursuant to a certificate of contempt issued by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. The respondent did not contest the charge of contempt but argued for a lesser sentence, considering his role in a larger criminal investigation and his non-centrality to the inquiry. The central issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the respondent's contempt, specifically whether the proposed eight-month imprisonment was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

Justice Bromberg examined the principles guiding contempt sentencing, focusing on deterrence, denunciation, and the specific circumstances of the case. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the contempt, noting the respondent's deliberate refusal to comply with a court order, which undermined the administration of justice. Despite the respondent's arguments regarding his peripheral role in the investigation, the court emphasised the importance of upholding judicial authority. Ultimately, the court found that an eight-month prison term was appropriate, balancing the need to deter similar conduct with the respondent's role in the broader investigation.

In conclusion, the Federal Court upheld the proposed eight-month imprisonment term for the respondent, finding that it was necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court also ordered that specific case materials be sealed and preserved, to be opened only by court order, reflecting the sensitive nature of the investigation involved. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that contempt of court is met with appropriate sanctions, regardless of the offender's position within a larger criminal scheme.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the applicant on 20 May 2016, the respondent be imprisoned for eight months such imprisonment to be served wholly within a corrective services facility.

2. The following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked “not to be opened except by order of the court”:

(a) Originating Application dated and filed 23 May 2016;

(b) Certificate of Contempt dated 20 May 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016;

(d) Outline of submissions of the applicant dated 8 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016; and

(e) Outline of submissions of the respondent dated 18 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016.

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:	Scott v FC [2016] QSC 178
PARTIES:	MICHAEL JOHN SCOTT (applicant) v FC (respondent)
FILE NO:	SC No 5136 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:	22 July 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2016
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	1. Being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of the applicant on 20 May 2016, the respondent be imprisoned for eight months such imprisonment to be served wholly within a corrective services facility. 2. The following material be placed in an envelope, which is to be sealed and marked “not to be opened except by order of the court”: (a) Originating Application dated and filed 23 May 2016; (b) Certificate of Contempt dated 20 May 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016; (c) Affidavit of Ian Galpin sworn 8 June 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016; (d) Outline of submissions of the applicant dated 8 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016; and (e) Outline of submissions of the respondent dated 18 July 2016 and filed by leave on 22 July 2016.
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW – EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION – where the respondent refused to answer a question in terms of the certificate of contempt of the applicant – where the respondent does not contest that he is in contempt – where the contempt occurred in the context of a major crime investigation – where the respondent was not the principal target of the inquiry – assessment of appropriate term of imprisonment Crime and Corruption Act 2001, s 176, s 180(3), s 197(5), s 198(4)(c), s 199, s 199(8B), s 199(8F) Callanan v F (unreported, Byrne SJA, 16 February 2010), cited O’Connor v CD [2016] QSC 37, considered O’Connor v OP [2016] QSC 38, cited O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, considered O’Connor v Witness I [2014] QSC 82, considered R v Freeman [1998] QCA 462, cited Scott v M (unreported, Boddice J, 29 August 2011), considered Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, applied
COUNSEL:	B J Power for the applicant S L Kissick for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crime and Corruption Commission for the applicant Fallu McMillan Lawyers for the respondent