Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34

Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34

The acts alleged against the appellant were done in the performance of an administrative function or power conferred on her as Chief Magistrate under s 10 of the Magistrates Act 1991 (Q), so that s 21A conferred on her the same immunity from criminal responsibility as a magistrate has in a judicial proceeding. This immunity, which is for the public benefit and cannot be waived, precluded criminal responsibility for the conduct charged, and neither s 119B nor s 140 of the Criminal Code (Q) contains explicit language overriding such immunity. The conviction must be quashed and an acquittal entered, regardless of the ground not being raised at trial or in the Court of Appeal, as exceptional...

Parties
Appellant: Diane McGrath Fingleton; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; acquittal entered on both counts.
Legal Topics
Judicial Immunity for Magistrates, Criminal Responsibility of Judicial Officers, Retaliation Against Witnesses, Scope of Appellate Review, Powers of Chief Magistrate, Construction of S 21 a Magistrates Act 1991 (qld)
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Immunity Judicial Immunity for Magistrates Criminal Responsibility of Judicial Officers Retaliation Against Witnesses Scope of Appellate Review Powers of Chief Magistrate +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diane McGrath Fingleton

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the statutory immunity for magistrates under s 21A of the Magistrates Act 1991 (Qld) extend to acts done by the Chief Magistrate in the performance of administrative functions, thus precluding criminal responsibility under s 119B of the Criminal Code (Qld)?
  2. 2 Can an immunity not raised at trial or in the Court of Appeal be invoked for the first time in the High Court?
  3. 3 What is the correct construction of 'reasonable cause' in s 119B of the Criminal Code (Qld)?

Ratio Decidendi

The acts alleged against the appellant were done in the performance of an administrative function or power conferred on her as Chief Magistrate under s 10 of the Magistrates Act 1991 (Q), so that s 21A conferred on her the same immunity from criminal responsibility as a magistrate has in a judicial proceeding. This immunity, which is for the public benefit and cannot be waived, precluded criminal responsibility for the conduct charged, and neither s 119B nor s 140 of the Criminal Code (Q) contains explicit language overriding such immunity. The conviction must be quashed and an acquittal entered, regardless of the ground not being raised at trial or in the Court of Appeal, as exceptional...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; acquittal entered on both counts.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside.