Witness J A v Scott

The appeal in Witness J A v Scott involved the appellant challenging an order sentencing him to imprisonment for contempt of court. The appellant had previously been found in contempt in 2013 for refusing to answer questions during a hearing before the Crime and Corruption Commission. In 2014, the appellant again attended the same hearing, in response to the same attendance notice, and again refused to answer the same questions. He was subsequently sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for this “second contempt” under section 199(8B) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The appellant argued that the contempt in 2014 was not distinct from the contempt in 2013, and therefore, he could not be punished again for the same act. Additionally, the appellant contested the validity of sections 199(8A) and (8B) of the Act, arguing that they were an invalid intrusion on the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

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.