Witness G v Scott - [2016] QSC 286

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Witness G v Scott [2016] QSC 286

PARTIES:

WITNESS G

(applicant)

v
SCOTT

(respondent)

FILE NO:

SC No 9032 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

28 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2016

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was being examined at a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing in respect of his knowledge of drug trafficking and related offences by two other persons – where the applicant refused to answer a question on the basis that he had a “reasonable excuse” under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where the reasonable excuse was said to be that officers investigating the applicant’s own conduct were present at the hearing and the applicant feared the prospect of derivative use being made of his answer – where the respondent ruled that the applicant did not have a “reasonable excuse” – whether the applicant had a “reasonable excuse” for not complying with the requirement to answer the question

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 180, s 180(3) s 190, s 190(2), s 190(4), s 194, s 194(2), s 194(3)(b), s 197, s 202, s 331, s 331(2), s 331(4)(b)

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130

Crime and Misconduct Commission v WSX and EDC [2013] QCA 152, cited

Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 253 CLR 455; 308 ALR 252, cited

Valletta v NCA [1999] FCA 791; (1999) 164 ALR 45, cited

X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92, applied

COUNSEL:

J W Fenton for the applicant

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale & Son for the applicant

Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent

The applicant was being examined at a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing in respect of his knowledge of drug trafficking and related offences by two other persons, including questioning about the source of the dangerous drugs trafficked by them and the identity of and involvement of others in their drug trafficking network. The applicant had himself been charged with trafficking as a result of a transaction involving at least one of those two people. Counsel assisting the investigation said that it was proposed to examine the applicant, not with the objective of strengthening the case against him, but with the objective of enlisting his knowledge of the involvement of others in drug trafficking and related offences.
When he was affirmed, he was asked whether he was involved in supplying ice to one of the other named persons and refused to answer the question, in part, because it could be used to get other evidence and because there were police in the room involved in the investigation into him and “they can use what I say to go find other evidence and use…

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 Witness G v Scott 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: [2016] QSC 286
Decision Date: 28 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by Witness G, who was being examined at an investigative hearing by the Crime and Corruption Commission in Queensland. The applicant was being questioned about his knowledge of drug trafficking and related offences by two other persons. Witness G refused to answer a particular question, citing a "reasonable excuse" under section 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The excuse was that officers investigating the applicant's own conduct were present at the hearing, and the applicant feared that his answers could be used against him in derivative proceedings. The respondent, Scott, ruled that the applicant did not have a reasonable excuse. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's excuse was reasonable and whether he was justified in refusing to answer the question.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's refusal to answer was justified by a reasonable excuse under section 190 of the Act. The court considered the meaning and scope of "reasonable excuse" and the context in which the excuse was claimed. The applicant argued that the presence of officers investigating his own conduct at the hearing created a situation where his answers could be used against him in derivative proceedings. The court had to weigh the applicant's fear of derivative use against the need for the investigative hearing to proceed effectively. The respondent contended that the applicant's excuse did not meet the statutory threshold for a reasonable excuse and that the applicant should be required to answer the question.

The court found that the applicant's excuse did not constitute a reasonable excuse under the Act. The court held that the mere presence of officers investigating the applicant's own conduct did not automatically create a reasonable excuse for refusing to answer a question at the hearing. The court emphasised that the investigative hearing was a formal process designed to uncover the truth, and the applicant's fear of derivative use did not outweigh the public interest in obtaining truthful information. The court concluded that the respondent's ruling that the applicant did not have a reasonable excuse was correct. Therefore, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was required to answer the question.

The court's final order was that the application by Witness G was dismissed. The applicant was directed to answer the question that had been refused. This decision underscored the importance of investigative hearings in uncovering the truth and the limited circumstances under which an applicant may refuse to answer a question on the basis of a reasonable excuse.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

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:	Witness G v Scott [2016] QSC 286
PARTIES:	WITNESS G (applicant) v SCOTT (respondent)
FILE NO:	SC No 9032 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	28 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2016
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was being examined at a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing in respect of his knowledge of drug trafficking and related offences by two other persons – where the applicant refused to answer a question on the basis that he had a “reasonable excuse” under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – where the reasonable excuse was said to be that officers investigating the applicant’s own conduct were present at the hearing and the applicant feared the prospect of derivative use being made of his answer – where the respondent ruled that the applicant did not have a “reasonable excuse” – whether the applicant had a “reasonable excuse” for not complying with the requirement to answer the question Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 180, s 180(3) s 190, s 190(2), s 190(4), s 194, s 194(2), s 194(3)(b), s 197, s 202, s 331, s 331(2), s 331(4)(b) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130 Crime and Misconduct Commission v WSX and EDC [2013] QCA 152, cited Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 253 CLR 455; 308 ALR 252, cited Valletta v NCA [1999] FCA 791; (1999) 164 ALR 45, cited X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92, applied
COUNSEL:	J W Fenton for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	A W Bale & Son for the applicant Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent