Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2020] QSC 321

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission & Ors [2020] QSC 321

PARTIES:

DONATO SPINOSA

(Applicant)

v

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(First Respondent)

and

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE & OTHERS

(Second to Tenth Respondents)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 8212 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2020

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDERS:

1. The application filed on 18 August 2020, and the proceeding, is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding (including the applications filed by each of the first respondent, and the second to tenth respondents, seeking dismissal of the proceeding).

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – REASONS FOR ADMNISTRATIVE DECISIONS – EXCLUDED DECISIONS – application for a statement of reasons in relation to what are claimed to be decisions by police not to investigate, or further investigate complaints of alleged assaults, and decisions by the Crime and Corruption Commission not to investigate, or further investigate, allegations of police misconduct – whether such decisions are excluded decisions, for the purposes of part 4 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – APPLICATIONS – applications to dismiss the proceeding under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), if it is taken to be an application for a statutory order of review

COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf

M G Docwra (sol) for the first respondent

M C O’Brien (sol) for the second to tenth respondents

SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf

M G Docwra (sol) for the first respondent

M C O’Brien (sol) for the second to tenth respondents

On 18 August 2020, Mr Spinosa filed an application in this court headed “Application Relating to Statement of Reasons”. He purported to name the following as defendants:
“CCC
Qld Police
Ethical Standards Command
Holland Park Police
Boondall Police
Constable Rickards
Brisbane City Police
OIC S/Sgt Dan O’Connor
Dutton Park Police”
The body of the application reads:
“Application in relation to the decision of the respondent that (specify decision)
The applicant is aggrieved by the decision because –
1. The Police refuses to investigate assault QP1702188361 claiming my assault complaint is ‘vexatious’ because I didn’t have a mark when I told them I felt pain. Please refer to letter attached.
2. The Police refuses to investigate other assault matters, including very serious sexual assaults (grabbed by testicles) as outlined in the letter attached.
3. OIC’s and complaints agencies (ESC and CCC) refuses to investigate and address the issues I raised as outlined in letter attached.”
No decision is identified in the application.
The application was accompanied by two affidavits of Mr Spinosa, annexing documents identified as exhibits A (letter addressed to Judge of Supreme Court dated 29 July 2020), B (Police Report QP1702188361), C (police statement QP 1702188361), D (letter from OIC Holland Park QP 1702188361), E (psychologist letter of trauma suffered), F…

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 Spinosa v Crime and Corruption 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: [2020] QSC 321
Decision Date: 22 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission, the applicant, Mr Spinosa, sought a statement of reasons for decisions made by police and the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) in relation to complaints of alleged police misconduct. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was asked to determine whether the decisions in question were excluded decisions under part 4 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The court also had to consider whether the application to dismiss the proceeding should be treated as an application for a statutory order of review under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decisions by the police and the CCC to not investigate, or further investigate, allegations of police misconduct were excluded decisions under the Judicial Review Act. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the application to dismiss the proceeding should be considered an application for a statutory order of review, which would have implications for the court's jurisdiction and the applicable procedure and evidence rules.

The Court of Appeal held that the decisions in question were indeed excluded decisions, as they fell within the scope of the exclusions outlined in part 4 of the Judicial Review Act. The court found that the decisions related to the exercise of discretion in relation to the investigation of complaints, and thus were not subject to the requirement for reasons under the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the application to dismiss the proceeding should not be treated as an application for a statutory order of review, as it did not seek a review of an administrative decision, but rather sought to dismiss the proceeding on procedural grounds.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application filed on 18 August 2020, as well as the proceeding itself. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including the costs associated with the applications filed by each of the first respondent, and the second to tenth respondents, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application filed on 18 August 2020, and the proceeding, is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding (including the applications filed by each of the first respondent, and the second to tenth respondents, seeking dismissal of the proceeding).

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:	Spinosa v Crime and Corruption Commission & Ors [2020] QSC 321
PARTIES:	DONATO SPINOSA (Applicant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (First Respondent) and QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE & OTHERS (Second to Tenth Respondents)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 8212 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	22 October 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 October 2020
JUDGE:	Bowskill J
ORDERS:	1. The application filed on 18 August 2020, and the proceeding, is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding (including the applications filed by each of the first respondent, and the second to tenth respondents, seeking dismissal of the proceeding).
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – REASONS FOR ADMNISTRATIVE DECISIONS – EXCLUDED DECISIONS – application for a statement of reasons in relation to what are claimed to be decisions by police not to investigate, or further investigate complaints of alleged assaults, and decisions by the Crime and Corruption Commission not to investigate, or further investigate, allegations of police misconduct – whether such decisions are excluded decisions, for the purposes of part 4 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – APPLICATIONS – applications to dismiss the proceeding under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), if it is taken to be an application for a statutory order of review
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M G Docwra (sol) for the first respondent M C O’Brien (sol) for the second to tenth respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M G Docwra (sol) for the first respondent M C O’Brien (sol) for the second to tenth respondents