Date of Order: 19 March 2021 Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 April 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 March 2020
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Davis J
ORDERS:
Orders delivered: 19 March 2021
1. Application for leave to appeal refused.
2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED AT TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane of 46 charges, contained in four complaints, pursuant to the Forestry Act 1959 (‘Forestry Act’) and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (‘Sustainable Planning Act’) – where the charges arose as a result of illegal clearing of vegetation on the applicant’s property known as ‘Chess Park’ – where the applicant appealed the convictions in the Magistrates Court to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (‘Justices Act’) – where the appeal to the District Court was partially successful – where the District Court set aside the conviction on two of the charges in complaint 1, reduced the sentence and the amount of costs the applicant was ordered to pay and set aside another ancillary order – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 118(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 against the remaining convictions – whether the learned District Court judge erred in upholding the remaining convictions in relation to the other 44 charges
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the applicant was fined a total sum of $276,000 in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane – where, on appeal, the District Court reduced the fine to take into account the applicant’s success in having two convictions quashed – where the applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 118(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 to appeal the fine imposed in the District Court on three bases, including that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the learned District Court judge made an error of fact by making findings against the applicant which were not supported by evidence or by placing no weight or insufficient weight upon the facts before the Court – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST ORDER AS TO COSTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a costs order was made against the applicant in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane in the first…
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 Baker v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Baker v Smith [2021] QCA 66
Case
[2021] QCA 66
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Baker v Smith, the applicant, Baker, sought leave to appeal against convictions and a fine imposed by the Magistrates Court at Brisbane. Baker was found guilty on 46 charges under the Forestry Act 1959 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, which arose from illegal clearing of vegetation on Baker's property, known as "Chess Park". Baker's appeal to the District Court was partially successful, with two convictions being quashed, the sentence reduced, and an ancillary order set aside. Baker now seeks leave to appeal against the remaining 44 convictions, as well as the fine imposed by the District Court.
The central legal issues in this case were whether the District Court judge erred in upholding the remaining convictions, and whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. Baker argued that the District Court judge made findings against Baker that were not supported by evidence, or placed insufficient weight on certain facts before the Court. Regarding the sentence, Baker contended that the fine was excessive, and that the District Court judge made errors of fact in their assessment.
The Court found that the District Court judge did not err in upholding the remaining convictions, as the evidence supported the findings made. The Court also determined that the fine imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive, and that the District Court judge did not make any errors of fact in their assessment. The Court further held that the Magistrate was within their jurisdiction to make a costs order at a later date and in favour of the respondent.
In conclusion, the Court refused Baker's application for leave to appeal and ordered Baker to pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders delivered:
1. Application for leave to appeal refused.
2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal on the standard basis.