Barkworth v Sidhu - [2009] QCA 356

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barkworth v Sidhu [2009] QCA 356

PARTIES:

JOANNE ELIZABETH BARKWORTH
(appellant/applicant)
v
MAJOR SINGH SIDHU
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 92 of 2009
DC No 3108 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:
1.   Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of the District Court of 23 March 2009.

2.   Allow the appeal, set aside the order made in the District Court and order instead that the appeal to that Court be allowed, the order made in the Magistrates Court be set aside, and instead make the following orders.

3.   The defendant is convicted and fined $1,200.

4.   A conviction is not recorded.

5.   The proper officer give particulars of the fine to SPER for registration under s 34 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:
TRADE AND COMMERCE – OTHER REGULATION OF TRADE OR COMMERCE – STATUTORY REGULATION OF PARTICULAR MATTERS – MISCELLANEOUS STATUTORY REGULATION – where respondent was a blueberry farmer in New South Wales, whose products were sold at a market stall in Queensland – where a routine inspection at the stall in Queensland found that the respondent’s product weighed less than the advertised weight – where the respondent was charged with 11 offences under s 32(1)(a) of the Trade Measurement Act 1990 (Qld) – where the product was packed in New South Wales, but the short measure was discovered in Queensland – whether s 32(1)(a) requires that the product be packed in Queensland and the short measure discovered in Queensland – whether the same result flows from application of s 12 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 4, s 14, s 35
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 12
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 139
Trade Measurement Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 32, s 34

ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden[2002] QCA 286, cited
Dempster v National Companies & Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215; (1993) 10 ACSR 297, cited
DPP v Sutcliffe[2001] VSC 43, cited
Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485; [1999] HCA 65, cited
R v Goulden [1993] 2 Qd R 534, considered
R v WAF & SBN[2009] QCA 144, cited
Renwick v Bell [2002] 2 Qd R 326; [2001] QCA 316, applied
Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1; [1989] HCA 30, cited
Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions [1971] AC 537, cited
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 55, cited

COUNSEL:

R J Byrnes…

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 Barkworth v Sidhu

Details

AGLC: Barkworth v Sidhu [2009] QCA 356
Case: [2009] QCA 356
Decision Date: 20 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barkworth v Sidhu involved the respondent, a blueberry farmer from New South Wales, who sold his products at a market stall in Queensland. During a routine inspection, it was discovered that the respondent's blueberry product weighed less than the advertised weight. Consequently, the respondent was charged with 11 offences under section 32(1)(a) of the Trade Measurement Act 1990 (Qld). The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether section 32(1)(a) of the Trade Measurement Act required the product to be packed in Queensland and the short measure discovered within that state, and whether section 12 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) would yield the same outcome. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court found that the statutory requirements were satisfied as the short measure was discovered in Queensland, regardless of where the product was packed. The court held that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order made in the District Court was set aside, and the order made in the Magistrates Court was quashed. The respondent was convicted and fined $1,200, with no conviction recorded. Furthermore, the proper officer was ordered to provide particulars of the fine to the State Penalties Enforcement Register for registration under section 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld).

In summary, the court determined that the statutory requirements were met, and the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the District Court and Magistrates Court were set aside. The respondent was convicted and fined, with no conviction recorded. The court also directed the proper officer to provide particulars of the fine to the State Penalties Enforcement Register.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of the District Court of 23 March 2009.

2. Allow the appeal, set aside the order made in the District Court and order instead that the appeal to that Court be allowed, the order made in the Magistrates Court be set aside, and instead make the following orders.

3. The defendant is convicted and fined $1,200.

4. A conviction is not recorded.

5. The proper officer give particulars of the fine to SPER for registration under s 34 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld).

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.

CITATION:	Barkworth v Sidhu [2009] QCA 356
PARTIES:	JOANNE ELIZABETH BARKWORTH (appellant/applicant) v MAJOR SINGH SIDHU (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 92 of 2009 DC No 3108 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the decision of the District Court of 23 March 2009. 2. Allow the appeal, set aside the order made in the District Court and order instead that the appeal to that Court be allowed, the order made in the Magistrates Court be set aside, and instead make the following orders. 3. The defendant is convicted and fined $1,200. 4. A conviction is not recorded. 5. *The proper officer give particulars of the fine to SPER for registration under s 34 State Penalties Enforcement Act* 1999 (Qld).**
CATCHWORDS:	TRADE AND COMMERCE – OTHER REGULATION OF TRADE OR COMMERCE – STATUTORY REGULATION OF PARTICULAR MATTERS – MISCELLANEOUS STATUTORY REGULATION – where respondent was a blueberry farmer in New South Wales, whose products were sold at a market stall in Queensland – where a routine inspection at the stall in Queensland found that the respondent’s product weighed less than the advertised weight – where the respondent was charged with 11 offences under s 32(1)(a) of the Trade Measurement Act 1990 (Qld) – where the product was packed in New South Wales, but the short measure was discovered in Queensland – whether s 32(1)(a) requires that the product be packed in Queensland and the short measure discovered in Queensland – whether the same result flows from application of s 12 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 4, s 14, s 35 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 12 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 139 Trade Measurement Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 32, s 34 ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden[2002] QCA 286, cited Dempster v National Companies & Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215; (1993) 10 ACSR 297, cited DPP v Sutcliffe[2001] VSC 43, cited Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485; [1999] HCA 65, cited R v Goulden [1993] 2 Qd R 534, considered R v WAF & SBN[2009] QCA 144, cited Renwick v Bell [2002] 2 Qd R 326; [2001] QCA 316, applied Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1; [1989] HCA 30, cited Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions [1971] AC 537, cited Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 55, cited
COUNSEL:	R J Byrnes…