Baker v Queensland Police Service

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker v Queensland Police Service [2022] QDC 109

PARTIES:

GREGORY MALCOLM BAKER

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

174 of 2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal – s 222 Justices Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrate Court

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2022

JUDGE:

Coker DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The Appeal is dismissed.

2.   The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,800.00.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – THE WEAPONS ACT 1990 (QLD) – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION TO REFUSE A COSTS APPLICATION BY A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT – where the learned Magistrate found the Defendant not guilty of 2 charges, 1 pursuant to the provisions of the Weapons Act and 1 pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code – whether the learned Magistrate had given inappropriate weight to one consideration arising pursuant to S158(A)(2) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), S 158, 158A, 222, 223(1). Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), S 58(2). Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), S 24, 458(4), 468(1).

CASES:

LIB v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 259, cited;
Davies v Commissioner of Police [2016] QCA 246, considered;
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22, considered.
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22, cited;
Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9, considered;
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255, considered
McPherson v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) QCA 396, cited
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited

COUNSEL:

Honchin. D for the Appellant

Lowrie. A for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Stevenson & McNamara for the Appellant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Introduction

1. On the 21^st September 2021 Gregory Malcolm Baker, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, filed a notice of appeal regarding a decision by Magistrate Mosch to dismiss his application for costs. To understand the nature of this application it is necessary to provide some background.

2. On 20^th March 2021, the Appellant was charged with two offences, firstly a charge pursuant to S. 58(2) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) that,

   ‘On the 1^st day of July 2020 at Townsville in the State of Queensland one Gregory Malcolm Baker without reasonable excuse and by the use of a weapon, namely a firearm engaged in conduct alone which was likely to cause injury to a person.’

3. The second charge was brought pursuant to S. 468(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), that:

   ‘On the 1^st day of July 2020 at Townsville in the State of Queensland one Gregory Malcolm Baker wilfully and unlawfully killed a dog, the property of one James Bruce Watson.’

4. For completeness, it should be noted that the wording of the Weapons Act offence was amended at the close of the prosecution case to omit the words, “injury to a person” and were substituted with, “alarm to another person”.

5. The two charges arose in the context of the Appellant, shooting and killing…