State of Queensland v Fewings

The matter before the court was a case involving the State of Queensland seeking the forfeiture of property under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld), the exclusion of the accused, Mr. Fewings, from enjoying the property, and an assessment of the proceeds of crime. The court had to determine the legality of the Director of Public Prosecutions' (DPP) examination of Mr. Fewings, specifically whether the DPP was given a reasonable opportunity to examine him under an examination order, and whether the principles of procedural fairness required the disclosure of the transcript of another person's examination prior to Mr. Fewings' own examination. The issues also included the admissibility of the transcript for the purposes of the examination and the timing of the examination in relation to a pending decision of the Court of Appeal in another matter.

The court considered that the Director of Public Prosecutions was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to examine the applicant under the Act, and that such an opportunity was contingent upon the principles of procedural fairness. The court found that the adjournment of the examination pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in another matter did not necessarily mean that the applicant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to be examined. However, the court held that the principles of procedural fairness did apply to the examination process, and required the disclosure of the transcript of another person's examination prior to Mr. Fewings' own examination. The court found that the application for disclosure was not necessary as the applicant had already been given a reasonable opportunity to be examined.

The court ordered that the applications for forfeiture, exclusion, and assessment of proceeds be heard together, and that the State give notice of the grounds for opposing the exclusion application within 14 days after the conclusion of the examination of Mr. Fewings. The court also ordered that the parties file and serve the affidavits they relied upon in the three applications within a specified time frame and that the three applications be listed for hearing together. The court dismissed the application for disclosure with costs.