Younan v Crime Reference Committee
[2011] QSC 373
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
- Younan v Crime Reference Committee[2011] QSC 373
- Add to List
Younan v Crime Reference Committee[2011] QSC 373
Younan v Crime Reference Committee[2011] QSC 373
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Younan v Crime Reference Committee & anor; Hamdan v Crime Reference Committee & anor [2011] QSC 373 |
PARTIES: | PAUL YOUNAN (applicant) v CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE (first respondent) JOHN DAVID CALLANAN (second respondent) HAYSAM HAMDAN (applicant) v CRIME REFERENCE COMMITTEE (first respondent) JOHN DAVID CALLANAN (second respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 10190 of 2011 SC No 10192 of 2011 |
DIVISION: | Trial |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | Delivered ex tempore 11 November 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 11 November 2011 |
JUDGE: | Atkinson J |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT OR IN CAMERA – where the applicants sought directions in judicial review proceedings – where one of the orders sought was with respect to the suppression of affidavit material and submissions filed – whether such an order should be made J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 10, cited Le Grand v CJC (No 2) [2001] QCA 432, cited Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495, cited Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, cited |
COUNSEL: | P Morreau for the applicant T Gardiner for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Nyman Gibson Stewart for the applicant Official Solicitor Crime and Misconduct Commission for the respondents |
HER HONOUR: I make the orders as per draft with the exception of paragraph 4.
The applicants in these matters have sought judicial review of a number of decisions of the Crime and Misconduct Commission to require them to attend to give evidence. The applications have come before me for directions.
Directions for the filing of material are appropriately to be made. However, the parties sought an order that all affidavit material and outlines of submissions, filed in support of or in response to the application, are to be sealed in an envelope marked "Not to be opened except by order of the Court".
Of course, the fundamental principle of our criminal justice and civil justice system is that all proceedings are heard in public and the documents are filed without the suppression sought: see Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; and Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495 at 520.
There are exceptions to that rule. Some of them are statutory, such as proceedings involving children, and others in the inherent jurisdiction of the court include matters such as national security, certain blackmail prosecutions, and limited orders made about secret processes in commercial litigation: see J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 10 at 44; and Le Grand v CJC (No 2) [2001] QCA 432 at [18].
Until the material has been drafted, it is not possible for me to tell if that important principle of public access should be denied in this case. Accordingly, I intend to make the orders for directions, but not to make any order that any affidavit material and outlines of submissions filed be sealed. Such an order is, in my view, at the very least premature.