Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission - [2004] QSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sharples v Crime & Misconduct Commission & Ors [2004] QSC 162

PARTIES:

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
(applicant)
v
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD)
(first respondent)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) STEPHEN LAMBRIDES
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 1755 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2004

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

1.    Leave to further amend the application is refused.

2.    The application for a statutory order to review and application for review (“the Application”) is dismissed.

3.    Subject to orders 4 and 5 the applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the applications to dismiss the Application) on the standard basis, to be assessed, such order to take effect at 4.01pm on 4 June 2004.

4.    Order 3 shall not take effect if any party (including the Attorney-General) duly makes a submission that a different order should be made no later than 4pm on 4 June 2004.

5.    For the purposes of order 4, a submission shall be deemed to be duly made if it is:

      (a)   in writing; and

      (b) served on the applicant or, as the case may be, the       first to fourth respondents and the Attorney-General; and

      (c)   given to my Associate by faxing it to 07 3247 5387       or by delivering it to the Registry;

      in every case no later than 4pm on 4^th June 2004.

6.    A reply to a submission made under order 4 may be made by any other party or the Attorney-General no later than 4pm on Friday 11^th June 2004, in the manner prescribed by order 5.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – GENERALLY – where applicant pleads – whether prerogative order could be sought to set aside a plea of guilty

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – “DECISION” WITHIN THE ACT’S APPLICATION – GENERALLY – whether a report is a decision – where there was alleged conspiratorial criminal conduct – where there was a dismissal of a request to reopen an investigation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – NATURE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF REMEDY – WHETHER CERTIORARI OR SOME REMEDY OTHER THAN PROHIBITION APPROPRIATE – where decision is judicial, not administrative – where appeal by rehearing available

Crime and Misconduct Act (Qld) 2001, s52
Judicial Review Act (Qld) 1991, s48, s20, s7, s12, s13
Justices Act (Qld)1886 s40, s40, s71, s222, s223

Ainsworth v CJC (1992) 172 CLR 564 cited
Bell v Liebsandft [2004] QCA 68, followed
Macgroarty v A-G (Q) (1989)167 CLR 251
Reece v McKenna [1953] Qd R 258, considered
R v Kinsman, Ex parte Tucker and Dossel [1962] Qd R 38, cited
Stubberfield v Webster

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 Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission 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: [2004] QSC 162
Decision Date: 28 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission was before the court, with Sharples seeking relief against the Commission's decision. The dispute centred on whether Sharples could use prerogative orders to set aside a plea of guilty, as well as whether a report constituted a decision under judicial review legislation, and if so, whether certiorari was the appropriate remedy. The case involved a complex interplay of administrative law principles, including the availability of prerogative orders and the scope of judicial review.

The court was tasked with determining whether a prerogative order could be sought to overturn a plea of guilty, a matter that touched on the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court had to clarify whether a report constituted a "decision" within the meaning of judicial review legislation, particularly in the context of alleged criminal misconduct and a dismissal to reopen an investigation. The court also had to decide whether certiorari was the appropriate remedy given the judicial nature of the decision and the availability of an appeal by rehearing.

The court found that a prerogative order could not be sought to set aside a plea of guilty, as this would interfere with the judicial process and the separation of powers. The court held that a report did not constitute a decision under the judicial review legislation, as it lacked the necessary finality and determinative effect. The court further concluded that certiorari was not the appropriate remedy because the decision in question was judicial rather than administrative, and an appeal by rehearing was available. Consequently, the application for a statutory order to review and application for review was dismissed.

The court ordered that leave to further amend the application be refused and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the Application, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the possibility of a different order being made if a party submitted a written request by a specified deadline, and the possibility of a reply to such a submission within a further specified period. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in judicial review cases and the limited scope of prerogative orders in matters involving criminal pleas and judicial decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to further amend the application is refused.

2. The application for a statutory order to review and application for review (“the Application”) is dismissed.

3. Subject to orders 4 and 5 the applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the applications to dismiss the Application) on the standard basis, to be assessed, such order to take effect at 4.01pm on 4 June 2004.

4. Order 3 shall not take effect if any party (including the Attorney-General) duly makes a submission that a different order should be made no later than 4pm on 4 June 2004.

5. For the purposes of order 4, a submission shall be deemed to be duly made if it is:

(a) in writing; and

(b) served on the applicant or, as the case may be, the first to fourth respondents and the Attorney-General; and

in every case no later than 4pm on 4th June 2004.

6. A reply to a submission made under order 4 may be made by any other party or the Attorney-General no later than 4pm on Friday 11th June 2004, in the manner prescribed by order 5.

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:	Sharples v Crime & Misconduct Commission & Ors [2004] QSC 162
PARTIES:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (applicant) v CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) (first respondent) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) STEPHEN LAMBRIDES (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 1755 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 March 2004
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	1. Leave to further amend the application is refused. 2. The application for a statutory order to review and application for review (“the Application”) is dismissed. 3. Subject to orders 4 and 5 the applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the applications to dismiss the Application) on the standard basis, to be assessed, such order to take effect at 4.01pm on 4 June 2004. 4. Order 3 shall not take effect if any party (including the Attorney-General) duly makes a submission that a different order should be made no later than 4pm on 4 June 2004. 5. For the purposes of order 4, a submission shall be deemed to be duly made if it is: (a) in writing; and (b) served on the applicant or, as the case may be, the first to fourth respondents and the Attorney-General; and (c) given to my Associate by faxing it to 07 3247 5387 or by delivering it to the Registry; in every case no later than 4pm on 4^th June 2004. 6. A reply to a submission made under order 4 may be made by any other party or the Attorney-General no later than 4pm on Friday 11^th June 2004, in the manner prescribed by order 5.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – GENERALLY – where applicant pleads – whether prerogative order could be sought to set aside a plea of guilty ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – “DECISION” WITHIN THE ACT’S APPLICATION – GENERALLY – whether a report is a decision – where there was alleged conspiratorial criminal conduct – where there was a dismissal of a request to reopen an investigation ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – NATURE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF REMEDY – WHETHER CERTIORARI OR SOME REMEDY OTHER THAN PROHIBITION APPROPRIATE – where decision is judicial, not administrative – where appeal by rehearing available Crime and Misconduct Act (Qld) 2001, s52 Judicial Review Act (Qld) 1991, s48, s20, s7, s12, s13 Justices Act (Qld)1886 s40, s40, s71, s222, s223 Ainsworth v CJC (1992) 172 CLR 564 cited Bell v Liebsandft [2004] QCA 68, followed Macgroarty v A-G (Q) (1989)167 CLR 251 Reece v McKenna [1953] Qd R 258, considered R v Kinsman, Ex parte Tucker and Dossel [1962] Qd R 38, cited Stubberfield v Webster