Queen v Speaker of the House of Representatives CA191/04

The case of Queen v Speaker of the House of Representatives involves Darryl Bruce Queen, who sought to appeal a decision made by Fogarty J in the High Court. The Speaker of the House of Representatives was the respondent in the case. Mr. Queen wished to make submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee regarding the Care of Children Bill, but he intended to reference specific Family Court decisions, which could lead to procedural difficulties. The Committee, however, was unwilling to accept these references due to potential legal issues. Mr. Queen filed a proceeding against the Attorney-General and later against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, seeking declarations and orders related to the interpretation of the Guardianship Amendment Act. Both proceedings were struck out by Fogarty J, and Mr. Queen then sought to appeal the decision, albeit one day late. The Court of Appeal considered the application for an extension of time and found that the appeal had no merit, dismissing the application and awarding costs to the respondent.

The primary legal issues in this case involved the separation of powers between Parliament and the Courts, as well as the interpretation and application of the Guardianship Amendment Act. The Court had to determine whether the High Court or the Court of Appeal could appropriately intervene in the proceedings of Parliament. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether a declaration regarding the interpretation of the Act would be of practical assistance to Mr. Queen, given the timeline of the Committee's proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court Judge was correct in striking out the proceeding due to the inherent futility of the appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers, which prevents the Courts from intruding into the business of Parliament. The Court also noted that a declaration regarding the interpretation of the Guardianship Amendment Act would not be of practical assistance to Mr. Queen, as the Committee had already reported the Care of Children Bill back to the House. Consequently, the application for special leave to extend the time for appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal made it clear that the appeal was not only futile but also unreasonable, as Mr. Queen persisted in litigation despite being informed of the constitutional position and the futility of his actions. The Court awarded costs of $1,000 and the respondent's reasonable disbursements to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.