R v Pridgeon & Greer[2022] QCA 210

[2022] QCA 210

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P

CA No 24 of 2022

DC No 1499 of 2022

THE KING

v

PRIDGEON, William Russell GREER, Ann Kathleen Applicants

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2022

JUDGMENT

1. [1]
   MULLINS P:  Dr Pridgeon is charged with two counts of conspiracy to defeat justice on District Court indictment 1499 of 2021.  Ms Greer is a co-defendant in respect of the second of those counts.  Both Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer applied for a permanent stay of the indictment.  Her Honour Judge Clare SC refused those applications on 10 December 2021: R v Pridgeon & Greer [2021] QDCPR 89.
2. [2]
   Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer filed an application in this Court for leave to appeal against Judge Clare’s decision and for orders that either the indictment be quashed or a permanent stay be granted.

3. [3]
   Both before and after the filing of the application, the registrar informed Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer that a ruling pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld) can only be raised as a ground of appeal against conviction or sentence and must not be subject to interlocutory appeal.  The Registrar invited Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer to abandon their application, but they wish to argue that s 590AA(4) does not apply in their case, as the intention of the provision is to prevent a trial from being delayed and in their case no trial date has been set.  In addition, Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer argue that the ruling made by Judge Clare was not a pre-trial ruling, as no trial date has been set.
4. [4]
   The indictment was presented in the District Court on 29 July 2021 and that gave the District Court jurisdiction to hear their application pursuant to s 590AA(1) of the Code to quash or stay the indictment.
5. [5]
   Their application is before the Court today so they can show cause why the application should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
6. [6]
   A ruling to refuse an application for a stay of the indictment is an interlocutory order.  Before s 590AA was enacted, the question of whether there was a right of appeal against an interlocutory order refusing to stay proceedings or quash an indictment was considered in R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579.  It was held by the majority that there was no right of appeal against interlocutory orders in proceedings upon indictment beyond what may be found in the Code and the Code provides no such recourse to an accused person.
7. [7]
   As Holmes JA explained in R v Moti [2010] QCA 178 at [43]-[44], s 669A(1A) was inserted into the Code by the same amending act as s 590AA.  The former provision gives the Crown Law Officer an immediate right of appeal against an order staying proceedings, but s 590AA(4) makes it clear that an accused person who wishes to take issue with a direction or ruling in relation to the staying of an indictment could do so only after trial as a ground of appeal against the conviction.  
8. [8]
   It is not appropriate for me to summarise the detailed submissions that Dr Pridgeon and Ms Greer put before the Court for the purpose of this show cause hearing, as those submissions are not relevant to the question of jurisdiction.  The simple response to their persistence in wishing to maintain their application in the Court of Appeal is that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an interlocutory order refusing to stay the indictment.
9. [9]
   The order of the Court is: Application for leave to appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction.