Scott v NPQ

Case [2022] QCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott v NPQ [2022] QCA 98

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN SCOTT
(appellant)
v
NPQ
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 15056 of 2021
SC No 9703 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2021] QSC 321 (Williams J)

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2022

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

That order 2 of the orders made on 18 November 2021 be varied by substituting a term of 10 months for the term of 45 days.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE – CONTEMPT OF CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION – SENTENCE – where the respondent was required to attend a hearing of the Crime and Corruption Commission as a witness – where the respondent refused to answer the questions of the presiding officer at the hearing – where the respondent was in contempt of the Crime and Corruption Commission – where the respondent’s contempt was certified to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 199(2) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where the appellant applied to the Supreme Court under s 199(1) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) for an order punishing the respondent for his contempt – where the respondent was unwilling to purge his contempt – where the respondent was on remand for unrelated offences – whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account time served on remand in sentencing the respondent – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 176, s 180(3), s 190, s 197(5), s 198(1), s 199
Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld)
Criminal Code (Qld), s 8
Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld)
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (Qld), s 30
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A, s 161, s 198A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 930(2), r 931(2)

Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46, followed
O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, considered
O’Connor v Witness I [2014] QSC 82, considered
R v Fabre[2008] QCA 386, distinguished
R v Jones [1998] 1 Qd R 672; [1997] QCA 132, distinguished
R v Pacey (2005) 158 A Crim R 151; [2005] QCA 203, cited
R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97; [1998] QCA 93, distinguished
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3, cited
Witness J A v Scott[2015] QCA 285, cited

COUNSEL:

A C Freeman with E J Cooper for the appellant
G M Elmore for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crime and Corruption Commission for the appellant
Ashkan Tai Lawyers for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P:  In October 2020 an authorised official of the Crime and Corruption Commission approved an investigation into certain criminal activity.[1]  The appellant was the presiding…

Continue reading Scott v NPQ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Scott v NPQ [2022] QCA 98
Case
[2022] QCA 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an application by the appellant, Scott, against the respondent, NPQ, under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The respondent had been found in contempt of the Crime and Corruption Commission after refusing to answer questions during a hearing. This contempt was subsequently certified to the Supreme Court. The appellant sought an order punishing the respondent for his contempt, and the respondent, who was on remand for unrelated offences, was unwilling to purge his contempt. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the time the respondent had already served on remand when determining the sentence. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court examined the sentencing principles under the Act, focusing on whether the judge was entitled to consider the time already served by the respondent on remand. The court noted that while the time served on remand could be relevant to the sentencing decision, it should not be the sole factor. The court found that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to the seriousness of the contempt and the need to uphold the authority of the Crime and Corruption Commission. The court also determined that the sentence of 45 days was manifestly inadequate given the circumstances of the case.

The court varied the sentence to 10 months, acknowledging the need to deter similar conduct in the future and to uphold the authority of the Crime and Corruption Commission. The court held that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or provide sufficient deterrence. The variation of the sentence aimed to address these concerns while also considering the time already served by the respondent on remand.

The court ordered that the term of 45 days be varied to a term of 10 months, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and served the purposes of punishment and deterrence. This order reflects the court's determination that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and required adjustment to appropriately reflect the gravity of the respondent's contempt.

Orders

Orders of the court

That order 2 of the orders made on 18 November 2021 be varied by substituting a term of 10 months for the term of 45 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.