Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Selected for Reporting
[2017] QCA 33
This case considers whether the use of the term “court” in s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 extends to the District Court, thereby enabling the District Court to exercise powers under that section. In short, the Court of Appeal concluded that it did, finding that the word “court” must include a court to which a defendant has been committed or might have been committed for trial or sentences.
Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J
15 March 2017
This was a reference from the Attorney-General under s 668A(1) of the Criminal Code (the Code) on a point of law: “Does the District Court have the power pursuant to s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 to remand a defendant to take his or her trial or for sentence before another and proper court and to, in a proper case, grant or enlarge bail?”
The facts prompting the referral were unusual. The respondents were committed for trial to the District Court on one charge of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company with a circumstance of aggravation under the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (the VLAD Act). One respondent was also to be tried on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with an additional circumstance of aggravation. Pursuant to s 339(3) of the Code and s 7(1) of the VLAD Act the maximum penalties for the offences ranged from 25 to 35 years’ imprisonment. The District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases. The Crown sought an order pursuant to s 590AA of the Code that the District Court transfer the matter to the Supreme Court. [2]. The Crown’s application invoked s 129 of the Justices Act. The judge refused that application on the basis that since the expression “the court” was defined for the purposes of the Justices Act to mean the Magistrates Court, the District Court lacked power to transfer a matter in which it did not have jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. [4].
Fraser JA (Morrison JA and Mullins J agreeing) held the word “court” in s 129 of the Justices Act must include a court to which a defendant has been committed or might have been committed for trial or sentence. Thus, it extends to the District Court, the Children’s Court, and the Supreme Court”. [7]. See also comments by Morrison JA. [11].
Accordingly, the answer to the question is “yes”.
A De Jersey