Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) - [2004] QCA 247

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Anor
[2004] QCA 247
PARTIES: TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
(applicant/applicant)
v
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION
(QUEENSLAND)
(first respondent/first respondent)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT,
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION
(QUEENSLAND), STEPHEN LAMBRIDES
(second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5597 of 2004
SC No 1755 of 2004
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Leave/Judicial Review
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 21 July 2004
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 July 2004
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal refused with costs

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – CONDUCT RELATING TO MAKING OF DECISION – where applicant made complaint to Criminal Misconduct Commission relating to his being dealt with for contempt of court during committal proceedings – where CMC reported to Parliament on the matter – where applicant applied for judicial review of CMC’s decision – where learned primary judge ordered that application be summarily dismissed with costs – whether applicant has identified a specific question of law for determination by this Court – whether leave to appeal

should be granted

COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
A J Rafter SC for the first and second respondents
M O Plunkett for the Attorney-General (Qld)
V Paramasivan for Mr Halliday, Stipendiary Magistrate
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Acting Official Solicitor, Crime and Misconduct Commission
for the first and second respondents
Crown Law for the Attorney-General (Qld) and Mr Halliday,
Stipendiary Magistrate

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Williams will deliver his reasons first.

WILLIAMS JA: In the circumstances detailed in the reasons for judgment of Justice Mackenzie of 28 May 2004, the applicant sought various orders, pursuant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991, against various respondents.

As is pointed out in those reasons the matter became somewhat complicated because of changes in the designation of respondents to the application and as to the relief sought.

In addition by way of background, I would refer to the fact
that in November 2003, consequent upon a resolution of the
Queensland Parliament, the Premier referred a matter to the
CMC for consideration and advice, pursuant to Section 52 of

the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001.

That reference included matters relating to the involvement of
Federal Minister, Tony Abbott, and others in the original

legal action against Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge.

Consequent upon that reference being made, the applicant made a complaint to the CMC, pursuant to Section 36 of the Crime and Misconduct Act. That complaint related to the circumstance of his being dealt with for contempt of Court in the course of the committal proceedings on 19 August 2002.

Subsequently, the CMC reported to Parliament in January 2004 in response to the reference pursuant to Section…

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 (Qld) 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] QCA 247
Decision Date: 21/07/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, Sharples, who made a complaint to the Criminal Misconduct Commission (CMC) regarding the way he was dealt with for contempt of court during committal proceedings. The CMC reported on the matter to Parliament. Sharples then applied for judicial review of the CMC’s decision, arguing that the CMC had failed to give him an opportunity to be heard before reporting to Parliament. The primary judge dismissed Sharples' application for judicial review and ordered that it be summarily dismissed with costs. Sharples appealed to the court, seeking leave to appeal the primary judge's decision.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Sharples had identified a specific question of law for determination by the court and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The court needed to determine if there were grounds for judicial review of the CMC's decision and if Sharples' complaint about the lack of an opportunity to be heard before the CMC reported to Parliament was valid. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge's decision to summarily dismiss the application was appropriate and whether there was any merit in Sharples' appeal.

In examining the case, the court held that Sharples had not identified a specific question of law for determination by the court. The court found that the CMC had acted within its statutory powers when it reported to Parliament and that Sharples had not demonstrated any legal error in the CMC’s process. The court concluded that the primary judge correctly dismissed the application as it was without merit. Consequently, the court refused Sharples' application for leave to appeal and ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by Sharples.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs

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 and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Anor [2004] QCA 247
PARTIES:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (applicant/applicant) v CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QUEENSLAND) (first respondent/first respondent) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QUEENSLAND), STEPHEN LAMBRIDES (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5597 of 2004 SC No 1755 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave/Judicial Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	21 July 2004
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 July 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused with costs
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – CONDUCT RELATING TO MAKING OF DECISION – where applicant made complaint to Criminal Misconduct Commission relating to his being dealt with for contempt of court during committal proceedings – where CMC reported to Parliament on the matter – where applicant applied for judicial review of CMC’s decision – where learned primary judge ordered that application be summarily dismissed with costs – whether applicant has identified a specific question of law for determination by this Court – whether leave to appeal

COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf A J Rafter SC for the first and second respondents M O Plunkett for the Attorney-General (Qld) V Paramasivan for Mr Halliday, Stipendiary Magistrate
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Acting Official Solicitor, Crime and Misconduct Commission for the first and second respondents Crown Law for the Attorney-General (Qld) and Mr Halliday, Stipendiary Magistrate