EAC v Magistrates Court of Queensland [2025] QSC 240

Crime and Corruption Commission for the second respondent

• [1] The applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision of a magistrate made under s 201(4) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) that evidence from a Crime and Corruption Commission hearing not be given to him or his lawyer. In his application, the applicant names the first respondent as "Magistrates Court of Queensland". He seeks orders in the nature of certiorari, setting aside or quashing the decision, and in the nature of mandamus, directing the first respondent to reconsider the decision according to law.
• [2] The first respondent contends that it has been improperly named, because there is not one Magistrates Court in Queensland, there are many Magistrates Courts, each one constituted by a magistrate at a particular place. This is distinguished from the Supreme Court or the District Court, of which there is only one. In order to properly identify the decision-maker, the first respondent submits the particular magistrate who made the decision should be named, or alternatively the proper party could be described as "the Magistrates Court of Queensland constituted by [the particular magistrate]". An order substituting either of those as the name of the first respondent is sought.[1]
• [3] The applicant and the second respondent oppose such an order; although the applicant says the name of the first respondent should be corrected to "Magistrates Courts of Queensland".
• [4] I considered a similar issue in SYO v CMQ [2024] QSC 324, in the context of an application for judicial review of a decision made by a judge of the District Court. I found that the appropriate respondent party was the District Court of Queensland, not the individual judge. The first respondent submits the position is different in relation to the Magistrates Courts, because there is not one "court" but many. For that reason, the first respondent submits it is necessary to name the particular magistrate who made the decision.
• [5] I disagree. Other than in limited circumstances, which are not relevant here, a magistrate, like a judge, does not make a decision in their personal capacity, but rather in their capacity as a member of the Court on which the relevant power they exercise has been conferred. The fact that, under the current legislation, there are many "Magistrates Courts" in Queensland, not only one, does not support a different conclusion. As explained below, a simple way to reflect this distinction is to identify the first respondent as "A Magistrates Court of Queensland". That accurately identifies the decision-maker for the purposes of the judicial review proceeding. The decision was made by a Magistrates Court, constituted by a particular judicial officer at a particular place. But just as it is not necessary to name an individual judge who makes a decision as a member of the District Court, nor the place where the judge made the decision, there is no need to add that detail to the name of the party in the case of a decision made by a magistrate.
• [6] I agree that it is not correct to refer to the "Magistrates Court of Queensland". Nor, in my view, is it correct in this context to name as the party "The Magistrates Courts of Queensland". It was one of those Courts which made the decision, not all of them; and if the matter is remitted it will be remitted to one of those Courts, not all of them.
• [7] The starting point for my reasoning is that, in judicial review proceedings, the decision-maker is properly named as a party who must be bound by the judgment of the Court. However, unless the decision-maker acts as an individual, the responsible body should be named and not the individual.[2] In the present context, where judicial review of action by a judicial officer is sought, the responsible body is the Court which made the order,[3] not the individual judicial officer who constituted the Court for the purpose of making the decision.[4]
• [8] It is now well established that even though a Court is not a natural person or an artificial person (like a company) it is a juridical entity that may be named as a party.[5]
• [9] Although the first respondent initially argued to the contrary, it did not maintain that position at the hearing. Rather, the focus of the first respondent's argument is on what it contends is the effect of the statutory framework with respect to the constitution of the Magistrates Courts.
• [10] As to that, s 22(1) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) provides that the Magistrates Courts, as formerly established as courts of record in Queensland, are continued in existence. This confirms that there is not one single "Magistrates Court" in Queensland. There are multiple Magistrates Courts, each one constituted by a magistrate sitting at a particular place. Those places are defined in schedule 1 to the Justices Regulation 2014,[6] which lists a number of "districts" and places "for holding Magistrates Courts" within each district. Magistrates are appointed to a particular place (although can be transferred to another place).[7] Two or more Magistrates Courts may be held at the same time at the same place.[8]
• [11] There are strict rules for where proceedings before a Magistrates Court can be started, and heard.[9]
• [12] By s 22A of the Justices Act, Magistrates Courts have the civil, criminal and other jurisdiction:

(a) that Courts of Petty Sessions or justices sitting in Petty Sessions had before the commencement of the Justices Acts Amendment Act 1964; and

(b) that is conferred on them by the Justices Act and other Acts.

• [13] Relevantly, jurisdiction is conferred on a Magistrates Court under s 201 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001, which provides:

(1) This section applies if a person is charged with an offence before a court and anything stated at, or a document or thing produced at, a commission hearing (the evidence) is relevant evidence for the defence against the charge.

(2) On being asked by the defendant or the defendant's lawyer, the commission must give the evidence to the defendant or the defendant's lawyer unless the court makes an order under subsection (4).

(4) On application by an authorised commission officer, the court must order that the evidence not be given to the defendant or defendant's lawyer if the court considers that it would be unfair to a person or contrary to the public interest to do so."[10]

• [14] The applicant is charged with offences before a Magistrates Court in the Brisbane Magistrates Courts District. As explained by Colvin J in Pauga v Chief Executive of Queensland Corrective Services (No 4) [2022] FCA 339 at [5] to [18], the fact that there are multiple Magistrates Courts, each one constituted by a magistrate at a particular place within an identified district (or division of a district) does not mean there is a Court able to be recognised and described as, for example, the "Brisbane Magistrates Court". The Court is one of the Magistrates Courts - it is "a" Magistrates Court. This linguistic clarity is reflected in the definition of "Magistrates Court" in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) as a Magistrates Court established under the Justices Act 1886.
• [15] The correct name for the decision-maker is informed by identifying the repository of the power exercised to make the decision the subject of the judicial review application and the body to which any remedy is directed.
• [16] In both cases, the answer is "A Magistrates Court of Queensland".
• [17] For the purposes of identifying the repository of the power exercised, and the body to which the remedy is directed, there is no need to specify that, in this case, it was a Magistrates Court in the Brisbane Magistrates Courts District. That locational fact will be evident from the identification of the decision within the proceeding. It can also be incorporated into any order for remittal, which necessarily would be directed to a Magistrates Court, or a Magistrates Court in the Brisbane Magistrates Courts District (not to the particular magistrate who made the decision under review).[11]
• [18] For both remedy and identity of the decision-maker, it is neither necessary, nor appropriate, to name the particular judicial officer who made the decision. Contrary to the first respondent's reply submissions, at [15], there is a significant distinction between the individual magistrate and the Court which the magistrate constitutes for the purposes of making a decision in the exercise of a power conferred on the Court. Naming the particular judicial officer as a party to an application for judicial review of such a decision inappropriately personalises the matter. Judicial officers are tasked with making many difficult decisions in their capacity as a member of a Court. They do so as independent and impartial judicial officers of the Court of which they are a member, and which they constitute, in accordance with their judicial oath, not as individuals.

[1] See Brown v Rezitis [1970] HCA 56; (1970) 127 CLR 157 at 169 per Barwick CJ: the substitution would be to correct an incorrect description of a party, not as the substitute of one party for another.

[2] Sinkovich v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 383; (2013) 85 NSWLR 783 at [13] per Basten JA.

[3] Pauga v Chief Executive of Queensland Corrective Services (No 4) [2022] FCA 339 at [28].

[4] Brown v Rezitis [1970] HCA 56; (1970) 127 CLR 157 at 169; Kerr v Commissioner of Police and Crown Employees Appeal Board [1977] 2 NSWLR 721 at 724-725; Re Ruddock; Ex parte Reyes (2000) 75 ALJR 465 at [25]; SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [43] per McHugh J, at [91] per Gummow J, at [153] per Kirby J and at [180] per Hayne J; CQX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 386 at [3]- [4].

[5] Pauga v Chief Executive of Queensland Corrective Services (No 4) [2022] FCA 339 at [28].

[6] Made under s 22B(1) of the Justices Act.

[7] Section 5(3) of the Magistrates Act 1991 (Qld).

[8] Section 22B(2) of the Justices Act.

[9] See, for example, s 23C and s 139 of the Justices Act. See also the discussion in the Report for the Criminal Procedure Review - Magistrates Courts, volume one, dated 2 May 2023 at [7.8]-[7.10].

[11] Kerr v Commissioner of Police and Crown Employees Appeal Board [1977] 2 NSWLR 721 at 724.