Legal Research
Cases
Ajax v Bird

Ajax v Bird

Case [2010] QCA 2 2 February 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2

PARTIES:

AJAX, Raymond Laurence
(appellant/applicant)
v
BIRD, Christopher Roger
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 286 of 2009
DC No 425 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

2 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2010

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON A GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined for an offence against the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicles Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld) – where the applicant appealed the penalty under s 222 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal under s 118 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether the Magistrate erred by accepting the applicant’s plea of guilty – whether the applicant was entitled to challenge his conviction on appeal to the District Court – whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal his conviction

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222(2)(c)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld), s 14(2)(a), s 14(3)

Dore & Ors v Penny[2005] QCA 150, cited
Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188, cited
Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118, cited
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47; [2005] QCA 317; cited
R v GV[2006] QCA 394, cited
Shaw v Yule [1995] QCA 611, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents

KEANE JA: Justice Fraser will deliver his Honour's reasons for judgment first.

FRASER JA: On 29 January 2009, the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of an offence against s 14(3) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld) of failing to comply with a notice given by police to the applicant on 7 November 2007, requiring the applicant to correct defective parking lights on the applicant's vehicle and produce that vehicle to the Bribie Island police by 4.00 pm on 14 November 2007 for inspection. The Magistrate imposed a fine of $300 (against the maximum of $2250) and allowed three months to pay the fine, in default six days imprisonment. A conviction was recorded. The applicant appealed to the District Court under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ajax v Bird

Details

AGLC: Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2
Case: [2010] QCA 2
Decision Date: 2 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ajax appealed against a conviction recorded by the Magistrates Court of Queensland, which found him guilty of an offence under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicles Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld). Ajax had pleaded guilty to the offence, but now sought to appeal the penalty and his conviction. The legal issues were whether the Magistrate erred by accepting Ajax's guilty plea, and if Ajax was entitled to challenge his conviction on appeal. The court also considered whether Ajax should be granted leave to appeal his conviction.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the guilty plea and noted that Ajax had not raised any challenge to the plea at the time it was entered. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that pleas of guilty are made voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences. However, the court found that Ajax had not demonstrated any error in the Magistrate's acceptance of his guilty plea. The court also held that Ajax was not entitled to challenge his conviction on appeal as he had not raised any challenge to the plea at the time it was entered. Finally, the court held that Ajax was not entitled to leave to appeal his conviction as the appeal was unlikely to succeed.

The court refused Ajax's application for leave to appeal his conviction. The court found that Ajax had not demonstrated any error in the Magistrate's acceptance of his guilty plea, and that he was not entitled to challenge his conviction on appeal. The court also held that Ajax was not entitled to leave to appeal his conviction as the appeal was unlikely to succeed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2

Most Recent Citation

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112

Cases Citing This Decision

Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QDC 216
Citation 1 (Para 8)

…to a charge that is not made out at law, and this Court has power to receive, hear and determine the appeal in that context.[1] [1] Cf. Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, Meisser v R (1994-5) 184 CLR 132 at 141, Meisser v R (1994-5) 184 CLR 132 at 141…
Neucom v Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 203
Citation 2 (Para 41)

…ot guilty or where the appellant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge ‘that clearly did not exist at law.’” [13] (Citations omitted) [9][2010] QCA 2. [10][2004] QCA 118. [11][2005] QCA 150. [12][2005] QCA 317. [13][2010] QCA 2 at 3 [5].…
Selvaraja v Queensland Police Service [2022] QDC 94
Citation 3 (Para 5)

…lea of not guilty or where the applicant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge ‘that clearly did not exist at law” (Citations omitted) [2] [2010] QCA 2. [3] [2005] QCA 150. [4] [2005] QCA 317.…
Sisodia v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 165
Citation 4 (Para 16)

…ite clear where a defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty there is no right of appeal against conviction under s 222 of the Justices Act . [6] [2010] QCA 2 at [4].…
ARR v The Commissioner of Police [2020] QChC 8
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…In Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, [4] Fraser JA explicitly identified that:-…
TLB v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 128
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…y, that person has no right of appeal against conviction under section 222.[3] [3] Commissioner of Police v James [2013] QCA 403 at [11]; Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at [4]; Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118; Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150 and Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47 .…
Walker v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 125
Citation 7

…203 CLR 172 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84 White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 12 Maxwell v R [1996] 184 CLR 501 Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 Commissioner of Police v James [2013] QCA 403 at [12] Davies v Dorfler [1988] 2 Qd R 490 at 492. SOLICITORS: T. Grasso (Department of Police Prosecution)…
Batty v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 51
Citation 8

…appellant has a right of appeal against order of Magistrate refusing application to re-open Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 147A, s 222 Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, cited Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150, cited Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 142, cited Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501, cited Phillips v Spencer & Anor […
AJM v Commissioner of Police [2019] QDC 25
Citation 9

…Act 1886 (Qld) ss 147A, 222(1), 222(2)(a),(b),(c) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 3(3), 9(2)(a), 44, 48 Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188 Long v Spivey [2014] QCA 118 Shaw v Yule [1995] QCA 611 Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112 COUNSEL: The appellant is self-represented M Aittola for t…
Von Stieglitz v Dixon [2016] QDC 298
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…nviction under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886”.[5] [4] [2013] QCA 403. [5] Also see Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344 at [14-15] and Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at [4].…
Eastwood v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 182
Citation 11

…mstances, the person may only appeal on the sole ground that, relevantly, the penalty was excessive. The Court of Appeal, for example, in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at paragraph 4, has confirmed that from that provision it is clear that where a defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty, that person has no ri…
Oakley v Commissioner of Police [2014] QChC 8
Citation 12

…Henry J in Commissioner of Police Service v Magistrate Spencer & Ors [2013] QSC 202, [83] and the observations of the Court of Appeal in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, [5].…
Commissioner of Police v James [2013] QCA 403
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…is not necessary to decide whether the exception in s 222(2)(c) precluded such an appeal. It should be noted, however, as was observed in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at [4] that the decisions in Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118, Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150, and Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47 make it “quite…
Commissioner of Police Service v Spencer [2013] QSC 202
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…Section 222(2)(c) would not preclude the applicant pursuing an appeal in the present context. [40] Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112, [87]. [41] Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, [5].…
Cady v Cremasco [2013] QDC 171
Citation 15 (Para 2)

…amounted to a plea of not guilty.[9] [7] Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222(2)(c). [8] Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118 [24] per Davies J. [9] Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 [5] per Fraser JA.…
McNamara v Queensland Police Service [2013] QCA 100
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…guilty plea which we have the power to correct by exercising the power the District Court would have had to set aside the plea.[8] [8]Cf Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at [7] in the case of an appeal where there has been an unequivocal guilty plea.…
Van Kuik v Zuanetti [2012] QDC 116
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2, where Fraser JA, with whom the other members of the court agreed, said at [5]:…
R v Hennessy; Hennessy v Vojvodic [2010] QCA 345
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…n appropriate case to consider whether the plea was an unequivocal plea of guilty. [37] Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112 at [50] per Fraser JA; Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2.…
Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…ircumstances where a defendant has entered a guilty plea. That decision has been reaffirmed in a line of authority as the Court stated in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 at [4], observing:…
R v Samson [2011] QCA 112
Citation 20 (Para 1)

…cited as authority on the point here in issue. [31] Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118. That decision has often been followed, most recently in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2. [32] Hallam v Condon (unreported, Wylie DCJ, DC A 1/92, Townsville, 31/1/92) and Foxwell v Juszczak (unreported, O’Brien DCJ, DC A 12/93, Townsville…
Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…cited as authority on the point here in issue. [31] Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118. That decision has often been followed, most recently in Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2. [32] Hallam v Condon (unreported, Wylie DCJ, DC A 1/92, Townsville, 31/1/92) and Foxwell v Juszczak (unreported, O’Brien DCJ, DC A 12/93, Townsville…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…[1995] QCA 611) or where the appellant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge "that clearly did not exist at law" (see for example Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188). Those decisions have no potential application in relation to the applicant's ground of his proposed appeal. The applicant does not argue that the t…
R v GV [2006] QCA 394
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…was in fact not guilty of the offence are insufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: see Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 and R v GV [2006] QCA 394.…
Phillips v Spencer [2005] QCA 317
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…vision (then in s 222(2)(e)) bears its literal meaning. Long v Spivey was followed in Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150 and Phillips v Spencer & Anor [2005] QCA 317. It is quite clear that where a defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty that person has no right of appeal against conviction under s 222 of t…
Dore v Penny [2005] QCA 150
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…[2004] QCA 118 this Court held that this provision (then in s 222(2)(e)) bears its literal meaning. Long v Spivey was followed in Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150 and Phillips v Spencer & Anor [2005] QCA 317. It is quite clear that where a defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty that person has no right…
Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…22 on the sole ground that a fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment was excessive or inadequate. In a decision cited by the applicant, Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118 this Court held that this provision (then in s 222(2)(e)) bears its literal meaning. Long v Spivey was followed in Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150…
Meissner v the Queen [1995] HCA 41
Citation 6

…50, cited Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188, cited Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118, cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47; [2005] QCA 317; cited R v GV [2006] QCA 394, cited Shaw v Yule [1995] QCA 611, cited COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own b…
[1995] QCA 611 [1995] QCA 611
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…peal to the District Court where the appellant's plea was equivocal or, upon analysis amounted to a plea of not guilty (see, for example, Shaw v Yule [1995] QCA 611) or where the appellant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge "that clearly did not exist at law" (see for example Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188…

Legislation Cited

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) 118
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) 222(2)(c)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2
PARTIES:	AJAX, Raymond Laurence (appellant/applicant) v BIRD, Christopher Roger (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 286 of 2009 DC No 425 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	2 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 February 2010
JUDGES:	Keane and Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON A GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined for an offence against the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicles Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld) – where the applicant appealed the penalty under s 222 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal under s 118 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether the Magistrate erred by accepting the applicant’s plea of guilty – whether the applicant was entitled to challenge his conviction on appeal to the District Court – whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal his conviction District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222(2)(c) Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 (Qld), s 14(2)(a), s 14(3) Dore & Ors v Penny[2005] QCA 150, cited Hall v Bobbermen [2009] QDC 188, cited Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118, cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47; [2005] QCA 317; cited R v GV[2006] QCA 394, cited Shaw v Yule [1995] QCA 611, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents