Choo Cheng Kui v Quinn, Kenneth & ors [1984] FCA 294

Choo Cheng Kui v Quinn, Kenneth & ors [1984] FCA 294

No claim for legal professional privilege in relation to the statement has been established; however, in the circumstances, the Federal Court should not intervene in the course of part-heard committal proceedings by granting relief or answering the questions posed in the special case, pursuant to the discretion in Lamb v. Moss.

Parties
Applicant: Choo Cheng Kui; First Respondent (presiding Magistrate): Kenneth Quinn; Second Respondent (informant): Jack N. Ryder; Third Respondent: Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (special Case) / Judgment on Special Case; Application for Judicial Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977
Outcome
Application dismissed. The Court declined to answer questions 1-5 in the special case and answered question 6 in the negative. The proceedings were remitted to a single judge for formal dismissal. The applicant was ordered to pay one-half of the costs of the second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings, Legal Professional Privilege, Access to Prosecution Witness Statements, Court's Discretion on Access to Documents, Committal Proceedings Procedure
Administrative Law Criminal Law Evidence Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings Legal Professional Privilege Access to Prosecution Witness Statements Court's Discretion on Access to Documents Committal Proceedings Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Choo Cheng Kui

Applicant

Kenneth Quinn

First Respondent (presiding Magistrate)

Jack N. Ryder

Second Respondent (informant)

Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review (special Case) / Judgment on Special Case; Application for Judicial Review Under Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to access statements of prosecution witnesses in committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether statements are subject to legal professional privilege
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate has discretion to permit access if privilege does not attach

Ratio Decidendi

No claim for legal professional privilege in relation to the statement has been established; however, in the circumstances, the Federal Court should not intervene in the course of part-heard committal proceedings by granting relief or answering the questions posed in the special case, pursuant to the discretion in Lamb v. Moss.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The Court declined to answer questions 1-5 in the special case and answered question 6 in the negative. The proceedings were remitted to a single judge for formal dismissal. The applicant was ordered to pay one-half of the costs of the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • The Court declines to answer questions 1 to 5 in the special case and answers question 6 in the negative.
  • The applicant pay one-half of the costs of the second and third respondents of the special case.