The Queen v Brown

Case [2013] QCA 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Brown [2013] QCA 337

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(appellant)
v
JARROD KEVIN ANTHONY BROWN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10349 of 2013
SC No 10093 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The appeal is allowed and the order of the primary judge of 31 October 2013 is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – ORDERS SET ASIDE OR VARIED – where the respondent was granted bail on his own undertaking on a charge of riot – – where the Director of Public Prosecutions filed an application in the Supreme Court for review of the magistrate’s decision under s 19B of the Bail Act – where the primary judge raised concerns over remarks attributed to the Premier in media reports to the effect that the court should follow community wishes in deciding the matter – where the primary judge, in adjourning the matter, requested senior counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether the reports were substantively accurate; whether the Premier had withdrawn what was said in terms of the outcome of the case; and if he had not, whether the court ought to proceed to hear the matter – where on resumption of the hearing counsel for the appellant made no comment with respect to those enquiries but submitted that the comments were irrelevant and that his Honour should proceed to hear the application – where the primary judge found that there was a risk that members of the public would perceive a result in the Crown’s favour as having been influenced by the Premier’s statements, damaging the independence and the integrity of the Court – where the primary judge concluded that, exercising the court’s inherent jurisdiction, he should order a temporary stay – where the Crown appealed the stay – whether the Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings extended to the circumstances – whether the premises on which the primary judge’s determination was based, as to the risk of public perception and damage to the independence and integrity of the Court, were sound – whether the stay order should be set aside

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16, s 19B
Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 58, s 59, s 61, s 62
Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld), Sch 4
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 11

Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 87 ALJR 458; [2013] HCA 7, cited
Attorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation [1981] AC 303, cited
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Filippa [2005] 1 Qd R 587; [2004] QSC 470, cited
Jago v District…

Continue reading The Queen v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Brown [2013] QCA 337
Case
[2013] QCA 337
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen appealed against the decision of the primary judge to stay the proceedings in a matter concerning the granting of bail to the respondent, Brown, on a charge of riot. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Director of Public Prosecutions had filed an application in the Supreme Court for review of the magistrate’s decision under s 19B of the Bail Act. The primary judge raised concerns over remarks attributed to the Premier in media reports, which suggested that the court should follow community wishes in deciding the matter. The primary judge adjourned the matter and requested senior counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether the reports were accurate, whether the Premier had withdrawn his remarks, and whether the court should proceed if he had not. When the hearing resumed, counsel for the appellant did not comment on the enquiries but submitted that the comments were irrelevant. The primary judge found that there was a risk that members of the public would perceive a result in the Crown’s favour as having been influenced by the Premier’s statements, damaging the independence and the integrity of the Court. The primary judge concluded that, exercising the court’s inherent jurisdiction, he should order a temporary stay.

The court was required to determine whether the Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings extended to the circumstances. It was also necessary to consider whether the premises on which the primary judge’s determination was based, concerning the risk of public perception and damage to the independence and the integrity of the Court, were sound. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the stay order should be set aside. The court examined the nature of the Premier’s remarks, their potential impact on the public’s perception of the court’s independence, and the inherent power of the court to stay proceedings. The court also considered whether the primary judge’s concerns were justified and whether the stay order was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court held that the primary judge’s decision to stay the proceedings was not justified. The court found that the Premier’s remarks did not constitute an actual or perceived threat to the independence or integrity of the court. The court also held that the primary judge’s concerns were speculative and did not provide a sufficient basis for the stay order. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the need to avoid unnecessary stays of proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the primary judge was set aside. The court concluded that the stay order was an unwarranted interference with the due administration of justice.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the order of the primary judge of 31 October 2013 be set aside. The court’s decision emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the need to avoid unnecessary stays of proceedings. The court held that the primary judge’s concerns were speculative and did not provide a sufficient basis for the stay order. The court also found that the Premier’s remarks did not constitute an actual or perceived threat to the independence or integrity of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed and the order of the primary judge of 31 October 2013 is set aside.

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.