MacGroarty v Clauson [1989] HCA 34

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Deane, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ. MacGroarty v Clauson [1989] HCA 34

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissing the appeal to that Court and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs. Quash the appellant's conviction for contempt of court and set aside the order of Judge Loewenthal imposing a fine of $100.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

June 30 Mason C.J., Deane, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ.

The appellant is a member of the Queensland Bar. He was counsel for the accused in a trial before a judge and jury in the District Court at Southport when he was fined $100 for "contempt of Court". The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland granted the appellant leave to appeal from the order imposing the fine. By majority (Matthews and Dowsett JJ., Carter J. dissenting), the appeal was dismissed with costs. The present appeal to this Court is from the judgment and orders of the Full Court in that regard.

The verbal exchange between the learned trial judge and the appellant which gave rise to his Honour's decision to fine the appellant took place during the appellant's cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The transcript of the earlier parts of that cross-examination is not before the Court. It is, however, apparent from so much of the transcript as relates to the finding of contempt that the learned trial judge had formed the view that the appellant's cross-examination of the witness had become tedious and repetitive. In the Full Court, Carter J. commented that an examination of the earlier parts of the transcript "suggests a sound basis for the learned trial judge's concern" in that regard. Be that as it may, the stage was reached where the trial judge directed the appellant to refrain from again reading to the witness a passage from his evidence in the committal proceedings. The transcript, in which his Honour refers to that direction as a ruling, continues: