SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Witness J A v Scott [2015] QCA 285
PARTIES:
WITNESS J A
(appellant)v
M J SCOTT
(respondent)ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3512 of 2015
SC No 8639 of 2014DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 48DELIVERED ON:
18 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 September 2015
JUDGES:
Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The order made on 11 March 2015 be set aside.
3. The appellant be discharged forthwith.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and the proceeding in the Trial Division.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the appellant sought leave to appeal against an order sentencing him to two years and six months’ imprisonment following a finding that the appellant’s conduct constituted a distinct and “second contempt” within the meaning of s 199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) – whether s 62 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) conferred a right of appeal against an order made in the Trial Division that a person be punished for contempt – where there was no basis for limiting the general, unambiguous and sufficient language of s 62(1) – where the respondent’s argument that the appellant had no right of appeal and that s 62 did not apply was rejected – where the appellant was first sentenced to five months and 27 days imprisonment for refusal to answer a question during 2013 Commission hearing and was then sentenced for refusal to answer the same question when he appeared in response to the same attendance notice when the hearing resumed in 2014 – whether the contempt for which the appellant was punished in 2015 was a different contempt from that for which the appellant had been punished in 2013 and if not, whether there was any power to punish him again
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – THE LEGISLATURE – EXAMINATION OF VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION BY COURTS – challenge to the validity of the enactment of ss 199(8A) and (8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) on the basis that they were an invalid intrusion on the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – where s 199 allows the court to punish for contempt of a presiding officer as if it was a contempt in relation to court proceedings but does not affect the court’s power to deal with contempt in relation to its own proceedings – whether the exercise of jurisdiction under s 199(8A) and (8B) would be incompatible with the integrity, independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court as repository of federal jurisdiction invested under Ch III of the Constitution – where the limitations prescribed by ss…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Witness J A 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] QCA 285
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether section 62 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) conferred a right of appeal against the order sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for contempt. The court found that there was no basis for limiting the language of section 62(1), which provided a general right of appeal. The court also concluded that sections 199(8A) and (8B) did not affect the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The court held that the appellant’s failure to answer the same questions in 2014 did not constitute a distinct contempt as it was a continuation of the original contempt proceeding that began in 2013. Consequently, the court found that the trial judge had erred in characterising the 2014 refusal as a distinct contempt, and the appeal was allowed.
The court set aside the order made on 11 March 2015, discharged the appellant forthwith, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and the proceeding in the Trial Division. The appeal highlighted the limitations on punishing a person twice for the same act of contempt and the importance of distinguishing between distinct acts of contempt when sentencing for contempt of court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The order made on 11 March 2015 be set aside.
3. The appellant be discharged forthwith.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and the proceeding in the Trial Division.
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
Established by:
Full text does not contain this section.