SWN v CJA - [2025] QSC 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SWN v CJA & Ors [2025] QSC 218

PARTIES:

SWN

(applicant)

v

CJA

(first respondent)

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(second respondent)
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

(third respondent)

FILE NO:

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2025

JUDGE:

Crowley J

ORDERS:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Unless any party seeks to be further heard on the question of costs, pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act each party is to bear their own costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTS – REQUESTS TO PRODUCE – where the applicant is the complainant regarding child sexual offences allegedly committed by the first respondent – where the first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under s 14G Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) for a subpoena to be issued to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant – where the applicant submits that the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communications in order to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test under s 14H Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – EXCESS OR WANT OF JURISDICTION – PARTICULAR MATTERS WHERE NO DEFECT OF JURISDICTION – where the applicant is the complainant regarding child sexual offences allegedly committed by the first respondent – where the first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under s 14G Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) for a subpoena to be issued to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant – where the Court granted leave for the issue of the subpoena – where the applicant claims that the judge granted leave in error of jurisdiction because the judge was not satisfied to the appropriate standard regarding whether the protected counselling communications will have substantial probative value, particularly in circumstances where the judge had not considered the material – whether leave was granted in excess of jurisdiction

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 14F, s 14H,

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 4, s 32C

KS v Veitch (No 2) (2012) 84 NSWLR 172; [2012] NSWCCA 266, cited
MH v HJ (2023) 15 QR 449; [2023] QSC 176, approved
R v JML [2019] QDCPR 23, considered
R v TJ [2023] QDCPR 21, considered
R v TRKJ (No 2) [2023] QDC 231, approved
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362, applied
TRKJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (2021) 9 QR 472; [2023] QSC 297, followed

COUNSEL:
A D Scott KC, with A J Cousen, for the applicant
P J…

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 SWN v CJA

Details

AGLC: SWN v CJA [2025] QSC 218
Case: [2025] QSC 218
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who is the complainant in a case of alleged child sexual offences, appealed against a decision of the District Court to grant leave for the issue of a subpoena to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant. The first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under section 14G of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to issue a subpoena to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant. The applicant argued that the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication in order to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The applicant also claimed that the judge granted leave in error of jurisdiction because the judge was not satisfied to the appropriate standard regarding whether the protected counselling communications will have substantial probative value, particularly in circumstances where the judge had not considered the material.

The court found that the applicant's argument regarding the need to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication was not supported by the relevant legislation. The court held that the judge was not required to consider each document individually, but rather could make a general finding that the protected counselling communications had substantial probative value and satisfied the public interest test. The court also found that the judge had not erred in granting leave for the issue of the subpoena, as the judge had considered the material and made an informed decision. The court dismissed the applicant's claim that the judge had acted in excess of jurisdiction.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to succeed in their appeal and that the application was dismissed. The court also held that unless any party sought to be further heard on the question of costs, each party was to bear their own costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Unless any party seeks to be further heard on the question of costs, pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act each party is to bear their own costs of the application.

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:	SWN v CJA & Ors [2025] QSC 218
PARTIES:	SWN (applicant) v CJA (first respondent) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (second respondent) DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND (third respondent)
FILE NO:
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2025
JUDGE:	Crowley J
ORDERS:	1. The application is dismissed. 2. *Unless any party seeks to be further heard on the question of costs, pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act* each party is to bear their own costs of the application.**
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTS – REQUESTS TO PRODUCE – where the applicant is the complainant regarding child sexual offences allegedly committed by the first respondent – where the first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under s 14G Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) for a subpoena to be issued to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant – where the applicant submits that the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communications in order to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test under s 14H Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – EXCESS OR WANT OF JURISDICTION – PARTICULAR MATTERS WHERE NO DEFECT OF JURISDICTION – where the applicant is the complainant regarding child sexual offences allegedly committed by the first respondent – where the first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under s 14G Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) for a subpoena to be issued to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant – where the Court granted leave for the issue of the subpoena – where the applicant claims that the judge granted leave in error of jurisdiction because the judge was not satisfied to the appropriate standard regarding whether the protected counselling communications will have substantial probative value, particularly in circumstances where the judge had not considered the material – whether leave was granted in excess of jurisdiction Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 14F, s 14H, Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 4, s 32C KS v Veitch (No 2) (2012) 84 NSWLR 172; [2012] NSWCCA 266, cited MH v HJ (2023) 15 QR 449; [2023] QSC 176, approved R v JML [2019] QDCPR 23, considered R v TJ [2023] QDCPR 21, considered R v TRKJ (No 2) [2023] QDC 231, approved SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362, applied TRKJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (2021) 9 QR 472; [2023] QSC 297, followed
COUNSEL:	A D Scott KC, with A J Cousen, for the applicant P J…