A prosecution for refusing to answer questions at an Australian Crime Commission examination does not constitute an abuse of process merely because the witness has previously been convicted and punished for refusing to answer questions at an earlier examination in the same investigation, where the questions at the second examination are factually distinct and arise from new evidence or new lines of inquiry. The fact of prior punishment for similar offences may go to sentence but does not bear on whether there should be a trial at all. An appeal under s 669A(1A) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) filed 33 days after the decision does not constitute undue delay where no time limit is prescribed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.