Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission
[2004] QCA 247
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission[2004] QCA 247
- Add to List
Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission[2004] QCA 247
Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission[2004] QCA 247
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Leave/Judicial Review |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: |
|
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 21 July 2004 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mullins J |
ORDER: | Application for leave to appeal refused with costs |
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – CONDUCT RELATING TO MAKING OF DECISION – where applicant made complaint to Criminal Misconduct Commission relating to his being dealt with for contempt of court during committal proceedings – where CMC reported to Parliament on the matter – where applicant applied for judicial review of CMC’s decision – where learned primary judge ordered that application be summarily dismissed with costs – whether applicant has identified a specific question of law for determination by this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
THE PRESIDENT: Justice Williams will deliver his reasons first.
WILLIAMS JA: In the circumstances detailed in the reasons for judgment of Justice Mackenzie of 28 May 2004, the applicant sought various orders, pursuant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991, against various respondents.
As is pointed out in those reasons the matter became somewhat complicated because of changes in the designation of respondents to the application and as to the relief sought.
In addition by way of background, I would refer to the fact that in November 2003, consequent upon a resolution of the Queensland Parliament, the Premier referred a matter to the CMC for consideration and advice, pursuant to Section 52 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001.
That reference included matters relating to the involvement of Federal Minister, Tony Abbott, and others in the original legal action against Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. Consequent upon that reference being made, the applicant made a complaint to the CMC, pursuant to Section 36 of the Crime and Misconduct Act. That complaint related to the circumstance of his being dealt with for contempt of Court in the course of the committal proceedings on 19 August 2002.
Subsequently, the CMC reported to Parliament in January 2004 in response to the reference pursuant to Section 52.
In the current proceedings, the applicant essentially complained that the CMC did not carry out its duty in preparing that report to Parliament, and further, failed to carry out its duty of investigating the complaint which he made pursuant to Section 36. Material relating to those matters was before the Court.
The respondents to that original application then applied, pursuant to Section 48 of the Judicial Review Act, for an order that the original application be summarily dismissed. That application was heard before Justice Mackenzie on 30 March 2004, and for reasons delivered on 28 May 2004 he ordered that the original application be summarily dismissed with costs. From that order the applicant seeks leave of this Court, pursuant to Sections 48 and 49 of the Judicial Review Act, to appeal.
No specific question of law is identified as calling for determination by this Court and the detailed reasons of Justice Mackenzie do not contain any obvious error calling for this Court's reconsideration of the issues raised at first instance.
In the circumstances, leave to appeal should be refused, with costs.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
MULLINS J: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the order of the Court.