Williams v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

The case of Williams v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is an application for declarations that the disclosure obligations under the Criminal Code (Qld) apply to two complaints supporting arrest warrants issued to the applicant on 16 October 2017 and 17 July 2018. The applicant seeks to challenge the validity of the warrants and the production of the complaints upon which they were based, from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Additionally, the applicant has requested copies of information seized under search warrants on 26 July 2017. The applicant argues that the proceedings were initiated by the complaints which constitute criminal charges against her. The Commonwealth Director contends that the warrants have not been executed, and there is no party before the court or prosecutor, thus the disclosure obligation has not been activated.

The legal issues before the court were whether the complaints, under the proper construction of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), constitute criminal charges against the applicant, and whether a committal proceeding is on foot once proceedings under the Justices Act have been commenced by a complaint in writing. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the issuing of a warrant for arrest initiated a "relevant proceeding" within the meaning of s 590AB of the Criminal Code (Qld), such that the prosecution disclosure obligations were activated. The court was also required to examine whether the obligation to disclose depended on whether the statement or thing was in the "possession of the prosecution," which is defined as "in the possession of the arresting officer or a person appearing for the prosecution."

The court dismissed the application, finding the submissions for the Commonwealth Director compelling. The court held that in circumstances where the warrants had not been executed and there was no party before the court or prosecutor, the obligation to disclose in respect of a committal proceeding had not arisen. The court reasoned that the disclosure regime surrounding a "relevant proceeding" only applied post-arrest and since there was neither an arrest nor a matter before the court, the disclosure obligation had not been activated. The court concluded that the application was dismissed, and the parties would be heard as to costs.

The final orders were that the application be dismissed, and the parties be heard as to costs.