Ban v Dunne

[2014] QDC 232

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ban v Dunne [2014] QDC 232

PARTIES:

HAJNAL DALIA BAN
(applicant/appellant)

v

TIMOTHY PAUL LACEY DUNNE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

204/14

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

16.10.14

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The application for leave to extend the period of time to file a Notice of Appeal against both conviction and sentence in relation to Charges 1, 3 and 4 is refused.
2. The application for leave to extend the period of time to 21 January 2014 to file a Notice of Appeal against conviction in relation to Charge 2 is allowed.
3. In relation to Charge 2:

  (i)   The appeal against conviction is allowed;

  (ii)   The verdict of guilty is set aside; and

  (iii)   A verdict of not guilty is entered.

4. I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL – consideration of Tait – onus on Applicant to show good reason for delay and is in the interests of justice to grant extension – factors to consider when exercising judicial discretion - where no reasonable excuse for delay but appeal had reasonable prospects of success – where no prejudice to the respondent - where strict compliance with the Rules would result in an injustice on one charge - where leave granted on one charge.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE– where councillor failed to disclose relevant interest - where plea not taken but no injustice occasioned – where alleged lack of disclosure not particularised – where admissions made in pleadings are inadmissible - where notice pursuant to Bail Act 1980 irrelevant - where prosecution not required to call chief executive officer- where no prejudice was occasioned by virtue of a refusal to stay proceedings- where the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 lawfully contains offence provisions- where sentence imposed not manifestly excessive – where convictions should be recorded – high onus on publicly elected officials to comply with legislative requirements – where appeal successful on one charge.

COUNSEL:

B I McMillan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant was self-represented

Crown Solicitor for the respondent

1. The applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 27 March 2012 of four charges of breaching s 107(2) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 (“the Regulation”). On each of Charges 1 and 2 she was fined $1,000.00, on Charge 3 she was fined $750.00, and on Charge 4 she was fined $700.00.  She was also ordered to pay costs in the fixed amount of $5,000.00. Convictions were recorded.

1. The applicant now seeks an extension of time to appeal against those convictions and sentences.

1. Her grounds of appeal, set out in the Notice of Appeal filed on 21 January 2014 are:

1. Plea not taken at hearing as required pursuant to s 145 of the Justices Act;

2.          Lack of disclosure;

3.          Inadmissible evidence in relation to admissions made…