R v Juckes; Blomeley; Hutchins; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)

[2017] QCA 33

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › District Court
4. › Power to transfer proceedings to another court
5. › Whether District Court has power under s 129 Justices Act 1886 to remand defendant to proper court
6. › Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 129
7. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), ss 60, 61
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Definitions
3. › Contextual displacement of statutory definition
4. › Whether context requires statutory definition of 'court' to be inapplicable
5. › Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32A
6. › Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 4, s 129
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Reference of question of law
4. › Attorney-General's reference under s 668A Criminal Code
5. › Whether question is of general importance
6. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 668A

Quick Take

The District Court of Queensland has power under s 129 of the Justices Act 1886 to remand a defendant to take trial or for sentence before another and proper court, including the Supreme Court, where the District Court lacks jurisdiction. The statutory definition of 'court' as Magistrates Court in s 4 of the Justices Act is displaced by the context of s 129. This resolves the question that arose from the District Court ruling that it lacked such power.

Case Details

Citation[2017] QCA 33

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on4

2016R v Kay; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)QCA 269
2012R v NP; ex parte A-G (Qld)QCA 116
2004R v PV; ex parte A-G (Qld)QCA 494
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in