Appeal court doesn’t deem opinion in communication between respondents an administrative decision
The Queensland Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has found no error in the chief justice’s summary dismissal of a judicial review application that sought to prosecute the police officers who were the complainants in the applicant’s trial.
In Justice v Crime and Corruption Commission [2026] QCA 77, the applicant was charged with assaulting police in connection with a 9 June 2019 incident. After a trial, the District Court of Queensland acquitted him on 2 February 2021.
The applicant brought complaints regarding police conduct to the three respondents: the Crime and Corruption Commission, the Ethical Standards Command, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
On 22 December 2025, the applicant initiated a judicial review application seeking to reopen the matter. He alleged that the respondents:
Under s 48(1) and (3)(a) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), the chief justice summarily dismissed the judicial review application for a lack of a reasonable basis. The chief justice provided the following reasons:
Last 5 February, the applicant applied for leave to appeal the chief justice’s order. He alleged that the chief justice erroneously stated that the applicant based his application on the District Court’s finding that police unlawfully assaulted the applicant.
The applicant argued that his application sought a review under s 20 of the Act only of the ODPP’s unreasonable and erroneous communication to the Ethical Standards Command, which stated that there was no misconduct identified and that the police’s actions were lawful and reasonable.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland declined the application for leave to adduce further evidence and to appeal. The appeal court ordered the applicant to pay the Crime and Corruption Commission’s application costs.
The appeal court ruled that the ODPP’s opinion in a communication to the Ethical Standards Command was not a decision covered by the Act, as defined by s 4, because it was not an administrative decision made under an enactment.
The appeal court stressed that the applicant could not adduce additional material or advance different arguments via an appeal against the dismissal of his judicial review application. The appeal court added that an appeal based on the applicant’s submissions before the chief justice would fail.
