Millar v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCA 76

- Word Highlighter:

- 0 of 0

-

-

-

- CITE

• Unreported Judgment

• Appeal Determined (QCA)

• Add to List

Millar v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCA 76

• Enhanced View
• View Original Version
• Download Original

Millar v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCA 76

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

| CITATION: | Millar v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCA 76 |
| PARTIES: | MILLAR, Andrew John

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent) |
| FILE NO/S: | CA No 15 of 2022

DC No 4469 of 2019 |
| DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
| PROCEEDING: | Review |
| ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane – [2021] QDC 304 (Dann DCJ) |
| DELIVERED ON: | Date of Orders: 21 April 2026

Date of Publication of Reasons: 24 April 2026 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| HEARING DATE: | 21 April 2026 |
| JUDGE: | Doyle JA |
| ORDERS: | Date of Orders: 21 April 2026

1. Paragraph 5 of the Order of 25 March 2026 be extended to 4 pm on 29 April 2026.
2. Costs reserved. | | COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf

C M Cook for the respondent |
| SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |

1. [1] DOYLE JA: On 21 April 2026 at the request of the applicant, I conducted a review of this matter. These are my reasons for the directions made, and those not made, on that review.
2. [2] In the course of it the applicant raised a number of issues, not all of which were matters in respect of which he sought directions that day.
3. [3] At his request, I granted an extension of the time limited by paragraph 5 of the directions I had made on 25 March 2026, so as to give him until 4 pm on 29 April 2026, instead of 22 April, to provide the material referred to in that paragraph.
4. [4] Apart from this the matters raised by Mr Millar were as follows:
5. [5] First, there was some issue arising out of the form of the reasons for judgment of this Court delivered in February 2025 which were expressed to be reasons of the “Court”. Mr Millar sought to obtain a transcript or some other document which recorded which individual members of the Court had concurred in that judgment. I declined to make any such order. As explained to Mr Millar, the reasons were those of each member of the Court expressing a unanimous decision.
6. [6] Second, he urged that by reason of the respondent not having filed any affidavit material as contemplated by paragraph 4 of my directions of 25 March 2026, the respondent should be taken to have accepted that Constable Palmer had perjured himself or engaged in some other similar misconduct. As a consequence, it was suggested that the Commissioner of Police should be added as a respondent. There was no proper reason shown to make such an order in respect of the current application, which is for leave to reopen the earlier appeal, and I declined to do so.
7. [7] Third, the applicant suggested that given the gravity of complaint he proposed to advance in his application concerning the conduct of one or more members of this Court, the Chief Justice should undertake to supervise the continuation of this application. It is not apparent that any further review of the application will be needed ahead of its hearing nor that members of this Court are not able to deal with any such reviews. The management of the matters in this Court should be dealt with in the ordinary course.
8. [8] In that context Mr Millar made it plain that he intended to make submissions about the misconduct of certain members of the Court. Accordingly, he made plain that if any of those particular Justices were members of the panel to hear the application on 3 June 2026, he would bring an application for them to recuse themselves. No application has been made in respect of which any order is necessary at this stage.
9. [9] The applicant raised two further points concerning matters which appeared from the written submissions he made in relation to the primary application; being those at the bottom of page 2 and again on page 3 of those submissions. He suggested that an affidavit ought to be required to be filed by Constable Palmer and that some further disclosure of documents (statements numbered 1 and 2) of Darby should be provided. No formal application was made for this but in any event, there is nothing genuinely fresh on the matters he wishes to raise and there is no apparent reason these could not have been agitated when the matter was before me on 25 March 2026. If he wishes, and if necessary, the pursuit of these documents can be revisited after the determination of his current application for leave to reopen.

Editorial Notes

• Published Case Name: Millar v Queensland Police Service
• Shortened Case Name: Millar v Queensland Police Service
• MNC: [2026] QCA 76
• Court: QCA
• Judge(s): Doyle JA
• Date: 24 Apr 2026

Litigation History

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Cases Cited

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.