Anderson v Kerslake

Case [2013] QDC 262

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Anderson v Kerslake [2013] QDC 262

PARTIES:

NERISSA MARGARETE ANDERSON
(appellant)

v

DAVID KERSLAKE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D2/13

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Charters Towers Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Roma

HEARING DATE:

9, 19 August 2013 and 27 September 2013

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – JURISDICTION – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant convicted on single count of failure to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient excuse – where the appellant submitted the court had no jurisdiction because she was not bound by Australian law – where part of the evidence was an enrolment claim form – where the appellant submitted she was not offered any alternatives or advised of any rights if she refused to sign the form – where the appellant submitted her date of birth on the form was altered without her knowledge or approval by someone unknown – whether the State of Queensland has power to legislate in respect of the Ngadjon Tribe.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE - where the appellant convicted on single count of failure to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient excuse – where the appellant was sentenced to a fine of $100 – where no conviction recorded – where $100 was the maximum penalty which could be imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Australia Act 1986 (Cth)

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (Cth), s 41, s 51 (xxvi), s 127.

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), s 93, s 100, s 101, s 102, s 103, s 104, s 111.

Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 (Cth).

Corporations (Queensland Act) 1990 (Qld).

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 603.

Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999 (Cth), Sch 2.

Electoral Act 1992 (Qld), s 2, s 64, s 66, s 106, s 134, s 136, s 186.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 155A.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B.

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 139, s 142A, s 222, s 223, s 225(1).

Pacific Islander Protection Act 1873 (35 & 36 Victoria, ch 19).

Pacific Islander Protection Act 1875 (38 & 39 Victoria, ch 51).

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12.

Queensland Investment Corporation Act 1991 (Qld).

Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1979) 24 ALR 118; 53 ALJR 403, cited.

Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 118 ALR 193, cited.

Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271, cited.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, cited.

Graham v Queensland Nursing Council [2009] QCA 280, applied.

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied.

Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380, applied.

Krosch v Springell, ex parte Krosch (1974) QdR 107, cited.

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175…

Continue reading Anderson v Kerslake

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Anderson v Kerslake [2013] QDC 262
Case
[2013] QDC 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the appellant, Anderson, appealed against her conviction and sentence for failing to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient excuse. The matter was heard by the Honourable Justice Doe. The appellant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over her, contending that she was not subject to Australian law due to her membership in the Ngadjon Tribe. Additionally, she claimed that she was not provided with alternatives or informed of her rights when she was required to sign an enrolment claim form, and that her date of birth on the form had been altered without her knowledge.

The court examined the jurisdictional argument, considering whether the State of Queensland had the authority to legislate in matters concerning the Ngadjon Tribe. It was determined that the state did have this power, and therefore, the court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction over the appellant. The court also dismissed the argument regarding the enrolment form, finding that there was no requirement for the appellant to be advised of alternatives or rights before signing the form. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's claim about the alteration of her date of birth on the form was not substantiated.

The appeal against the sentence was also considered, with the appellant arguing that the fine of $100 was manifestly excessive. However, the court found that the fine was within the statutory maximum penalty for the offence, and no conviction was recorded. The appeal against both the conviction and sentence was ultimately dismissed.

The court's decision was that the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the appellant. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

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.