Beazley v Chevathun

Case [2018] QDC 28

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beazley v Chevathun [2018] QDC 28

PARTIES:

CONSTABLE ALEXANDER PAUL BEAZLEY
(Appellant)

v

BERNADETTE CHEVATHUN      
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

164 of 2017

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2018 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2018

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is dismissed;

2.   The decision of the learned Magistrate is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against acquittal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 – prohibition on possession of liquor in a restricted area pursuant to s 168B(1) Liquor Act 1992 – reasonable suspicion – whether the officers formed the requisite suspicion to enliven their powers pursuant to s 60(1) and (4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act – whether the search of the vehicle was unlawful – discretion to exclude evidence

Legislation
Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 2002 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222
Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) ss 168B, 168B(1), 173H, 173H(1)
Liquor Regulation 2002 (Qld) ss 1, 2
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 60(1), 60(3), 60(3)(c), 60(4), 60(6), Schedule 6

Cases
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Bunning v Cross [1978] 141 CLR 54
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia (2002) 117 FCR 566
 R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292
R v Jaudzems [2014] QSC 074
R v Purdon [2016] QSC 128
R v Rondo [2016] NSWCCA 540
R v Versac [2013] QSC 046
Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84

COUNSEL:

E Coley, Solicitor, for the Appellant
P Haarsma, Solicitor, for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Appellant
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for the Respondent

HER HONOUR: This is an appeal by the prosecution pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against an order of the learned Magistrate made at Aurukun Magistrates Court on 18 August 2017. On 18 August 2017, the respondent was acquitted, following a summary trial, of one charge of prohibition on possession of liquor in a restricted area pursuant to section 168B(1) of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld).

The circumstances of the offence

The following summary of the circumstances of the offence is taken from the appellant’s outline of submissions. On 4 April 2017, the respondent and a number of other people were travelling in a vehicle towards Aurukun on the Aurukun Access Road. Constable Beazley and Acting Senior Constable Trezise were conducting mobile patrols in a marked police car on that road. At about 12.45 am, Constable Beazley saw the vehicle the respondent was travelling in approaching the police vehicle on the Aurukun Access Road and he activated the police lights, signalling the vehicle to stop. At that time, they were approximately five kilometres from Aurukun and were within the area which has been declared a restricted area under…

Continue reading Beazley v Chevathun

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beazley v Chevathun [2018] QDC 28
Case
[2018] QDC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beazley v Chevathun, the appellant sought to appeal against his acquittal by the Magistrate, arguing that the evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle should not have been excluded by the Magistrate. The search in question was conducted under the authority of section 60 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, which allows officers to search a person or vehicle if they reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity or has contraband on them. The primary dispute was whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion to justify the search, and if the search itself was lawful.

The central legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the officers' actions were in compliance with the law. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the officers formed a reasonable suspicion under section 60(1) and (4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, and if this suspicion was sufficient to warrant the search of the vehicle. The appellant contended that the search was unlawful and that the evidence obtained should not have been excluded. The court was required to assess the officers' actions in the context of the Liquor Act 1992 and whether the search violated any legal principles.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented regarding the officers' suspicions and the circumstances of the search. It was held that the officers had a reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, including the restricted area status and the appellant's behaviour. The court found that the officers' actions were lawful and that the search was conducted in accordance with the legal requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Magistrate's decision, upholding the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the search.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. The decision of the learned Magistrate is confirmed.

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.