By Bruce Grundy (23.10.2003)
In Queensland, the notion that the courts should be open and accountable has taken yet another serious blow.
The Justice Project has been advised that the Brisbane magistrates court does not hold, and is not the keeper of, the records of two committal proceedings that took place in that court recently.
The records and control of them have passed to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the material sought cannot be accessed through the magistrates court.
The Justice Project had sought access to the transcript of the committal proceedings of a man charged with destroying evidence (see: Access To Truth Denied , Rule Of Law And Destruction of Evidence and Decade-long Farce Laid Bare) and another who had been charged with murder (see: Mysterious Death And The John Oxley Connection).
In the first case the Director General of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Dr Ken Levy, said: "… I am advised it may be erroneous to regard any officer of the Magistrates Court, Brisbane, as being the 'person having custody of the record' within the meaning of section 154 of the Justices Act [under which access had been sought], in this instance, because upon the defendant being committed for trial, the depositions (including the original handed-up statements) and related papers were transmitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with section 126 of the Justices Act".
Dr Levy said he was conducting an investigation to determine who was the custodian of the record.
An application by the Justice Project for access to the transcript of the committal hearing of Brendan Ryan Turbane on a charge of murder (see: Mysterious Death And The John Oxley Connection) was also unsuccessful.
The Acting Registrar of the Magistrates Court advised that the court did not retain the record of that proceeding.
It had been passed to the Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions for the DPP's attention following the man's committal.
The Acting Registrar said access to the remaining material on the file had been granted.
However, he pointed out that: "… this matter has been committed to a higher court and consequently material such as the transcript of proceedings and exhibits have been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions Office so that it may conduct proceedings in the higher court.
"Please be advised that the remaining material which makes up the file held in this office comprises only a dozen pages."
In effect, the transcript of the proceeding concerned was not available to be accessed as it was no longer held by the court.
Legal figures contacted by The Justice Project have expressed dismay and amazement at the revelation that what they had imagined to be a court of record was not a court of record at all.
Dr Levy also responded to a complaint from The Justice Project that a senior court official had denied access to a document on grounds that were false, including, firstly, a claim that the entirety of the proceedings involved had been covered by a suppression order (when they were not), and later, that the hearing had been conducted in closed court (which it was not).
Dr Levy said " … it would serve no useful purpose to seek to investigate the matter as involving a possible breach of discipline or misconduct" as he considered there was no reason to suspect that the man had acted "otherwise than in good faith".
Top
