Smith v PRQ - [2022] QSC 123

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith v PRQ [2022] QSC 123

PARTIES:

FORBES HUSTON SMITH (as Presiding Officer of the Crime and Corruption Commission)

(applicant)

v
PRQ

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 14000/21

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2022

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was called to give evidence before a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing – where the respondent refused to answer questions – where the respondent asserted that he feared for his life – where the respondent asserted that he had a “reasonable excuse” not to answer questions under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (“CCA”) – where the presiding officer decided that the respondent did not have a “reasonable excuse” – where the respondent did not appeal the presiding officer’s decision under s 195 of the CCA – where the presiding officer certified that the respondent was in contempt – where the applicant seeks an order that the respondent be punished for contempt – whether the respondent had a “reasonable excuse” to refuse to answer questions – whether the Commission proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did not have a “reasonable excuse”

COUNSEL:

JL Gorry for the applicant

JR Hunter QC and JJ Underwood for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crime and Corruption Commission for the applicant
Dib & Associates for the respondent

This is an application brought by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) asking that the respondent be punished for contempt. The contempt is alleged to be failing to answer a question without reasonable excuse at a hearing conducted pursuant to chapter 4 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (CCA). All statutory references are to that Act unless otherwise specified.
Section 190(1) provides that, “A witness at a commission hearing must answer a question put to the person at the hearing by the presiding officer, unless the person has a reasonable excuse”. Section 198(1) provides that, “A person is in contempt of the presiding officer conducting a commission hearing if the person … (c) at the hearing, contravenes a provision of this Act relating to the hearing; or … (e) does anything at the hearing or otherwise that would be contempt of court if the presiding officer were a judge acting judicially.” Section 198(4) provides that, “To remove any doubt, it is declared that the following contraventions relating to a hearing may be certified in writing to the Supreme Court under section 199 as a contempt of the presiding officer … (c) a failure by a person, under section 190 … to answer a question put to the person at the hearing by the presiding officer without reasonable or lawful excuse.” (my underlining).
There is no dispute that the respondent was before a commission hearing and refused to answer questions put to…

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.

Continue reading Smith v PRQ

Details

AGLC: Smith v PRQ [2022] QSC 123
Case: [2022] QSC 123
Decision Date: 21 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Smith v PRQ concerned the refusal of the respondent to answer questions put to him by a presiding officer of a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing in Queensland. The respondent argued that he had a “reasonable excuse” not to answer the questions, citing a fear for his life. The presiding officer, however, found that the respondent did not have a reasonable excuse and certified that the respondent was in contempt. The respondent did not appeal this decision, and the applicant subsequently sought an order that the respondent be punished for contempt. The key legal issues for the court to determine were whether the respondent had a “reasonable excuse” to refuse to answer the questions, and whether the Commission proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did not have such a reasonable excuse.

The court examined the respondent's fear for his life as a potential reasonable excuse under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). It noted that the respondent had been involved in suspicious behaviour, had been shot during that behaviour, and had serious injuries that required surgery. However, the court also considered the lack of evidence that the respondent’s fear was reasonable and the fact that he had not appealed the presiding officer’s decision. The court concluded that the respondent did not have a reasonable excuse for refusing to answer questions, and the Commission had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did not have such an excuse.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application. The court held that the respondent's fear for his life, while understandable, did not constitute a reasonable excuse under the relevant legislation. It also noted that the respondent had not sought review of the presiding officer's decision, which further undermined his claim of a reasonable excuse. The court ultimately found that the Commission had met its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did not have a reasonable excuse. Therefore, the application for an order punishing the respondent for contempt was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

There is no dispute that the respondent was before a commission hearing and refused to answer questions put to him by the presiding officer. There is no contention that he has a lawful excuse, such as duress, see below. The issue is whether he did so without reasonable excuse. Factual Background In June 2021 the respondent was involved in some suspicious behaviour. He was shot during the course of it. He was badly injured but managed to call Triple 0. Police and ambulance officers attended. The respondent was taken to hospital where he underwent surgery. He would have died had this not occurred. Two people, who I will call A and B, were apprehended and remain in custody charged with the attempted murder of the respondent. Two other people, who I will call C and D, were charged with arson of a car involved in the suspicious behaviour. The police interviewed the respondent but he did not provide helpful information to them.Bail Applications A, B, C and D made bail applications. The following information is available from the affidavits sworn by police on those bail applications.A The circumstances leading to A’s arrest were that he spent a night in a motel with B. After checkout, cleaners found two firearms left in the room, along with ammunition. They called the police. A and B returned to the motel the next day to collect their forgotten property and police arrested A and his associate D (see below) shortly thereafter. At the time of his arrest A was carrying a handgun concealed in his jeans. The gun was loaded. There were drugs and ammunition in his car and in his bedroom. A was in a de facto relationship with D. A was charged with attempt to murder (the respondent), as well as four weapons charges, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and five drug possession charges. The police material on the objection to bail affidavits included the following:“The defendant is alleged to have committed a raft of serious offences, of most significance the defendant is alleged to have committed the offence of attempted murder … The defendant is alleged to have shot [the respondent] in the back as [the respondent] was attempting to run away from him. This has caused [the respondent] extensive injuries to his abdomen and he is receiving continuing medical treatment. [The respondent] was not armed and was not physically violent prior to being shot and it appears to be an unprovoked and premeditated attack. The victim has not co-operated with police throughout this investigation, likely due to the capacity of [A] and his associates to commit acts of serious violence. The defendant is also alleged to have committed the offence of unlawful possession of weapons … short firearm in public which incurs a minimum mandatory sentence of one year imprisonment wholly served. …” (my underlining). A is described as follows:“The defendant is a [relatively young] unemployed male person currently residing in South East Queensland. The defendant is a drug dependent person and his history of offending is consistent with methylamphetamine fuelled criminal activity. The defendant is transient and has no known fixed place of abode. …The defendant has seven pages of Queensland Criminal History, which primarily consists of property related offences. The defendant has been sentenced to several custodial sentences since turning 18 years where he has served an extensive time incarcerated however this has not deterred his offending, and the defendant has not lasted a month in the community upon his release before being taken back into custody, having alleged to have committed fresh serious offences involving violence.The defendant has a history of firearm possession and was located by police in possession of 8 stolen rifles in 2015.”

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:	Smith v PRQ [2022] QSC 123
PARTIES:	FORBES HUSTON SMITH (as Presiding Officer of the Crime and Corruption Commission) (applicant) v PRQ (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 14000/21
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2022
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was called to give evidence before a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing – where the respondent refused to answer questions – where the respondent asserted that he feared for his life – where the respondent asserted that he had a “reasonable excuse” not to answer questions under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (“CCA”) – where the presiding officer decided that the respondent did not have a “reasonable excuse” – where the respondent did not appeal the presiding officer’s decision under s 195 of the CCA – where the presiding officer certified that the respondent was in contempt – where the applicant seeks an order that the respondent be punished for contempt – whether the respondent had a “reasonable excuse” to refuse to answer questions – whether the Commission proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did not have a “reasonable excuse”
COUNSEL:	JL Gorry for the applicant JR Hunter QC and JJ Underwood for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crime and Corruption Commission for the applicant Dib & Associates for the respondent