Younan v Crime Reference Committee - [2014] QSC 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Younan v Crime Reference Committee & Anor; Hamdan v Crime Reference Committee & Anor [2014] QSC 24

PARTIES:

PAUL YOUNAN
(applicant)
v
CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE
(first respondent)
and
JOHN DAVID CALLANAN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

10190 of 2011

and

PARTIES:

HAYSAM HAMDAN
(applicant)
v
CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE
(first respondent)
and
JOHN DAVID CALLANAN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

10192 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

1 November 2013; 5 November 2013

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Applications Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER – ERROR OF LAW – where section 57 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2002 (Qld) requires regard be had both to the purposes of the Act and the importance of public interest

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – clear words abrogating right to silence and privilege against self‑incrimination – suspect

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

Accused A v Callanan [2009] 2 Qd R 112
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Callanan v B [2005] 1 Qd R 348
Hammond v The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188
Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39
Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2013] QSC 302
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281
Witness A v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2005] QSC 119
Witness C v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2008] QSC 196
Witness D v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2008] QSC 155
X7 v Australian Crime Commission & Anor [2013] HCA 29

COUNSEL:

A Boe with P Morreau for the Applicants
AJ MacSporran QC for the Respondents

SOLICITORS:

Nyman Gibson Stewart for the Applicants
Crime & Misconduct Commission for the Respondents

These two proceedings were heard together. In each the applicant asked for a statutory order of review of the decision of the second respondent, as delegate of the chairperson of the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC), to issue an attendance notice to him, pursuant to s 82 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act).

The factual background is that a man named Omega Ruston was shot dead on the Gold Coast Highway on 26 January 2009. While driving, he and his two passengers became involved in an argument with the occupants of another car. Mr Ruston pulled over to the side of the highway. The second car pulled over as well, and a man seated in the back of it produced a gun and shot Mr Ruston dead.

On 23 March 2009 the Crime Reference Committee[1] (CRC) referred the investigation of the murder of Mr Ruston to the CMC. On 2 April 2009 the second respondent authorised the holding…

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 Younan v Crime Reference Committee 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: [2014] QSC 24
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Younan v Crime Reference Committee, the plaintiff, Younan, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Crime Reference Committee under section 57 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2002 (Qld). The primary issue before the court was whether the Crime Reference Committee had improperly exercised its power by failing to consider the importance of the public interest, as required by the statute. The court was also required to determine whether the committee had considered irrelevant factors or made an error of law in interpreting the Act.

The court examined the statutory language and the obligations imposed by section 57, which mandates consideration of both the purposes of the Act and the importance of the public interest. It was argued that the committee had failed to adequately consider the latter, which was a material consideration under the statute. Furthermore, the court analysed whether the committee had considered factors that were irrelevant to the decision-making process, as well as whether there had been an error of law in the interpretation of the Act. The court found that the committee had considered the relevant factors as required by law and had not improperly exercised its discretion.

Following its analysis, the court concluded that the Crime Reference Committee had not erred in its decision-making process. It determined that the committee had appropriately balanced the statutory obligations and had not failed to consider the importance of the public interest. Additionally, the court found that the committee had not considered any irrelevant factors and had correctly interpreted the Act. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications 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:	Younan v Crime Reference Committee & Anor; Hamdan v Crime Reference Committee & Anor [2014] QSC 24
PARTIES:	PAUL YOUNAN (applicant) v CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE (first respondent) and JOHN DAVID CALLANAN (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	10190 of 2011 and
PARTIES:	HAYSAM HAMDAN (applicant) v CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE (first respondent) and JOHN DAVID CALLANAN (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	10192 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	1 November 2013; 5 November 2013
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Applications Dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER – ERROR OF LAW – where section 57 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2002 (Qld) requires regard be had both to the purposes of the Act and the importance of public interest STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – clear words abrogating right to silence and privilege against self‑incrimination – suspect Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Accused A v Callanan [2009] 2 Qd R 112 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Callanan v B [2005] 1 Qd R 348 Hammond v The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188 Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39 Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2013] QSC 302 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281 Witness A v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2005] QSC 119 Witness C v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2008] QSC 196 Witness D v Crime & Misconduct Commission [2008] QSC 155 X7 v Australian Crime Commission & Anor [2013] HCA 29
COUNSEL:	A Boe with P Morreau for the Applicants AJ MacSporran QC for the Respondents
SOLICITORS:	Nyman Gibson Stewart for the Applicants Crime & Misconduct Commission for the Respondents