Scott v Witness J A - [2015] QSC 48

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott v Witness J A [2015] QSC 48

PARTIES:

M J Scott

(Applicant)

V

Witness J A

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

8639/14

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 October 2014

JUDGE:

Byrne SJA

ORDER:

The respondent is to be punished for contempt by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – CUSTODIAL ORDERS – MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT ORDER – where the respondent was previously convicted and imprisoned for contempt – where the respondent refused to answer the same question that led to the first contempt at a second hearing – whether s.199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 applies to acts committed before the Act was enacted

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACT – PENAL ACTS – GENERALY

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, s.30

Crime and Corruption Act 2001, s.5, s.7, s.25, s.27, s.28, s.82, s.181, s.190, s.198, s.199, s.200

Criminal Code, s.16

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, s.931

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission (2012) 42 WAR 425; [2012] WASCA 84, cited

Anderson v XLVII [2015] FCA 19, cited

O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, cited

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams (2009) 262 ALR 417; [2009] FCAFC 171, cited

Doobay v Diamond 2012 ONCA 580, cited

Field v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] NSWCA 144, cited

Formal Wear Express Franchising v Roach [2004] QCA 339, cited

Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2014] VSC 134, cited

Hamdan v Callanan; Younan v Callanan [2014] QCA 304, cited

LA Macchia v Minister for Primary Industry (1986) 72 ALR 23, cited

Lee v NSW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39, cited

Leo v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 8, cited

McMillan v Price (1997) 115 NTR 19, cited

Page v Winkler (1975) 12 SASR 126, 129, cited

R v Shea [2010] QCA 339, distinguished

United States v Farah (6th Cir. 2014) No.13-6147 11 September 2014, cited

United States v Lack 874 F2d 1543, 1549 (11^th Cir. 1989), cited

United States & W Coachman Hill 752 F 2d 685 (DC Cir, 1985), cited

Ushkowitz v McCloskey 359 F 2d 788 (2nd Cir, 1966), cited

V G Wood v Stanton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, cited

Wilkinson v Anjum [2012] 1 WLR 1036, [2011] EWCA 1196, cited

Yates v United States 355 US 66 (1957), cited

17 American Jurisprudence 2d Contempt §88 Multiple Refusals

J Kraut, Power to Base Separate Contempt Prosecutions or Punishment on Successive Refusals to Respond to Same or Similar Questions, 94 ALR 2d 1246, §3

John M Lamont, Recent Decisions – Contempt, 39(2) Notre Dame Lawyer 231-236 (1964)

D C Pearce & R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 8

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott v Witness J A and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QSC 48
Decision Date: 11 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Witness J A involved a respondent who was previously convicted and imprisoned for contempt of court. The respondent refused to answer the same question that led to the first contempt at a second hearing, leading to a new sentencing proceeding. The central issue was whether section 199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001, which mandates imprisonment for contempt, applies to acts committed before the Act was enacted. The court was required to determine the applicability of the new statutory provision to the respondent's previous actions and whether it could be applied retroactively.

The court examined the legislative intent behind section 199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and its retrospective effect. The respondent argued that the new sentencing provisions could not apply to acts committed before the Act was passed. However, the court found that the clear language of the statute and its purpose to ensure consistent and severe penalties for contempt indicated a legislative intent to apply the provisions retroactively. The court held that the mandatory imprisonment provision was intended to apply to all acts of contempt committed since the Act's commencement, regardless of when the contempt occurred.

Consequently, the court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for two years and six months, reflecting the mandatory nature of the new sentencing provisions under section 199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001. The court's decision emphasised the importance of consistent enforcement of contempt laws and the retrospective application of the new sentencing regime.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent is to be punished for contempt by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.

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 Witness J A [2015] QSC 48
PARTIES:	M J Scott (Applicant) V Witness J A (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	8639/14
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 October 2014
JUDGE:	Byrne SJA
ORDER:	The respondent is to be punished for contempt by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – CUSTODIAL ORDERS – MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT ORDER – where the respondent was previously convicted and imprisoned for contempt – where the respondent refused to answer the same question that led to the first contempt at a second hearing – whether s.199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 applies to acts committed before the Act was enacted STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACT – PENAL ACTS – GENERALY Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, s.30 Crime and Corruption Act 2001, s.5, s.7, s.25, s.27, s.28, s.82, s.181, s.190, s.198, s.199, s.200 Criminal Code, s.16 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, s.931 Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission (2012) 42 WAR 425; [2012] WASCA 84, cited Anderson v XLVII [2015] FCA 19, cited O’Connor v Witness G [2013] QSC 281, cited Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams (2009) 262 ALR 417; [2009] FCAFC 171, cited Doobay v Diamond 2012 ONCA 580, cited Field v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] NSWCA 144, cited Formal Wear Express Franchising v Roach [2004] QCA 339, cited Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2014] VSC 134, cited Hamdan v Callanan; Younan v Callanan [2014] QCA 304, cited LA Macchia v Minister for Primary Industry (1986) 72 ALR 23, cited Lee v NSW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39, cited Leo v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 8, cited McMillan v Price (1997) 115 NTR 19, cited Page v Winkler (1975) 12 SASR 126, 129, cited R v Shea [2010] QCA 339, distinguished United States v Farah (6th Cir. 2014) No.13-6147 11 September 2014, cited United States v Lack 874 F2d 1543, 1549 (11^th Cir. 1989), cited United States & W Coachman Hill 752 F 2d 685 (DC Cir, 1985), cited Ushkowitz v McCloskey 359 F 2d 788 (2nd Cir, 1966), cited V G Wood v Stanton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, cited Wilkinson v Anjum [2012] 1 WLR 1036, [2011] EWCA 1196, cited Yates v United States 355 US 66 (1957), cited 17 American Jurisprudence 2d Contempt §88 Multiple Refusals J Kraut, Power to Base Separate Contempt Prosecutions or Punishment on Successive Refusals to Respond to Same or Similar Questions, 94 ALR 2d 1246, §3 John M Lamont, Recent Decisions – Contempt, 39(2) Notre Dame Lawyer 231-236 (1964) D C Pearce & R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 8