Scott v. Witness C

[2009] QSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott v Witness C [2009] QSC 35

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN SCOTT
(Applicant)
v
WITNESS C
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

536 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2008

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – crime and misconduct commission – special investigation - statutory requirement that the examinee answer questions – contempt of the hearing commissioner - whether the application contravened s 190 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 – whether there was a valid referral to the commission as required by the Act and by repealed legislation

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 ss 5, 25, 28(3), 26, 27, 28, 176, 190, 199, 200, 274, 277, 278, 291, 303, 324, 355
Crime Commission Act 1997 repealed legislation ss 28, 38, 46(7)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 925, 926, 930, 931, 932
Western Australian Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 ss 163(1), 163(2)

Brading v Thornton (1947) 75 CLR 140
Callanan v Beale unreported No 373/08
Callanan v Eyre unreported No 10763/03
Callanan v Schultz unreported No 1442/04
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union (2003) 78 ALJR 1231
Hammond v Aboudi [2005] WASCA 204
Keeley v Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162
Macarone v McKone (1986) 1 Qd R 284
MacGroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251
Plaintiff S 157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] 211 CLR 476
R v Brisbane TV Ltd; Ex parte Criminal Justice Commission (1996) 2 Qd R 41.

COUNSEL:

Mrs S Pearson for the applicant
Mr J Trevino for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mr D T Murphy, Official Solicitor Crime and Misconduct Commission for the applicant
Wettenhall Silva for the respondent

1. By this Originating Application the applicant seeks to have the respondent committed to prison or otherwise punished for his contempt of the applicant, as the presiding officer, at a Crime and Misconduct Commission hearing conducted pursuant to s 176 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (“the Act”). The application was heard in closed court because of the sensitivity of the evidence referred to but as it raises matters of general importance the decision is published in open Court with appropriate safeguards.

1. On 28 October 2008 the respondent appeared before the applicant on a closed hearing pursuant to an Attendance Notice issued by the applicant.  The Notice required the respondent to give evidence relating to his “knowledge of the production and sale of dangerous drugs and money laundering”[1].  The respondent appeared with a legal representative and indicated to the applicant that he did not want to answer any questions.  The respondent’s legal representative confirmed that those were his client’s instructions and after some further exchanges, to which reference will be made, the hearing was adjourned. 

   [1]Ibid Ex “D”

1. This application is founded…