Supreme Court - Trial Division

Callanan v Witness M [2017] QSC 002 (16/3054) Burns J 18 January 2017

Full-text: QSC17-002.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – FEDERAL AND STATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was called to give evidence before a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing – where the respondent refused to answer questions – where the respondent asserted that he had a “reasonable excuse” under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) for not answering questions – where the respondent asserted that his safety as well as that of his family would be endangered if he answered any questions about the subject matter of the investigation – whether the onus of proof of the existence of a “reasonable excuse” rested with the respondent – whether there was a “reasonable excuse” within the meaning of s 190 of the Act for the respondent’s refusal to answer questions

CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – INTEREFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW – EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION – where the respondent was called to give evidence before a Crime and Corruption Commission investigative hearing – where the respondent refused to answer questions – where the respondent asserted that he had a “reasonable excuse” under s 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) for not answering questions – where the respondent asserted that his safety as well as that of his family would be endangered if he answered any questions about the subject matter of the investigation – where the presiding officer decided that the respondent did not have a “reasonable excuse” within the meaning of s 190 of the Act and certified to the court in writing pursuant to s 198 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) that he was satisfied that the respondent was in contempt – where an application was subsequently made to the court for an order that the respondent be punished for his alleged contempt – whether the respondent failed to answer a question put to him at the Commission hearing by the presiding officer without reasonable or lawful excuse – whether the respondent was in contempt of the presiding officer