Blacklidge v Police

Case [2011] QMC 7


MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Blacklidge v Police [2011] QMC 007

PARTIES:

GLEN JOHN BLACKLIDGE

(applicant)

v

POLICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG242976/10(0)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Application for cross-examination of a witness at committal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2011

MAGISTRATE:

Hine BP

ORDER:

The application to call the witness Moragollage Senevirathna is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES – substantial reasons - interests of justice – onus on defendant

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A(5AA), s 110B

COUNSEL:

H Trotman for the applicant

R Farine for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale and Sons for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. In this matter the defendant has been charged as follows:

1.      That on the 23rd day of December 2010 at Spring Hill in the State of Queensland one Glenn John Blacklidge robbed Moragollage Shehan Senevirathna.

2.      That on the 23rd day of December 2010 at Spring Hill in the State of Queensland one Glenn John Blacklidge unlawfully used a motor vehicle namely a white 2009 Mitsubishi Triton without the consent of Sirus International Pty Ltd Trading as Super Clean the person in lawful possession thereof.

  1. The facts as alleged by the prosecution from the statement of Moragollage Senevirathna (the complainant) are that he was as a cleaner with Sirus International Pty. Ltd. The company has a contract to clean all the bus shelters in Spring Hill and inner City Brisbane.  At about 10.30pm on 23 December 2010 he drove to a bus shelter located at Boundary Street Spring Hill in a company vehicle a white Mitsubishi Triton utility. As he parked the car he noticed two males and a female standing at the bus stop.

  1. I will quote directly from his statement:

“I exited my vehicle and walked towards the bus stop where the people were. I noticed that one male was solid build, white skin, bald head, possibly some facial hair (and possibly no moustache), about five foot eight inches tall, about 35-40 years of age and was holding a bottle of beer in his hand. He was wearing a dark t-shirt and dark long pants. The other male was skinny build, had no t-shirt, white skin, about five foot eight inches tall, and about 24-30 years of age and was wearing a dark coloured baseball cap and ¾ length shorts. He was also holding a bottle of beer in his hand. The female was about 40-45 years of age, white skin, about five foot eight inches tall, black hair, thin build and was wearing a red long dress. They were standing in front of the bus stop just talking to each other. The bald guy was actually inside the bus shelter and the other two were just a little bit outside the shelter.

I then walked towards the people in order to explain to them…

Continue reading Blacklidge v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Blacklidge v Police [2011] QMC 7
Case
[2011] QMC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blacklidge v Police, the respondent sought to cross-examine additional witnesses during committal proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the respondent had sufficient cause to call these witnesses, particularly Moragollage Senevirathna, to ensure a fair trial. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had demonstrated substantial reasons for the need to cross-examine the additional witnesses, particularly focusing on Moragollage Senevirathna. The court needed to determine if the respondent had met the onus of proving that the cross-examination was necessary in the interests of justice and to safeguard the fairness of the trial.

The court carefully considered the respondent's application and the arguments presented. It was established that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed cross-examination would yield new or significant information that was not already before the court. The court also noted that the respondent had not adequately demonstrated how the cross-examination of Moragollage Senevirathna would contribute to a fair determination of the charges. Consequently, the court concluded that the respondent had not met the required threshold to call additional witnesses, and the application was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application to call the witness Moragollage Senevirathna be refused. The court reiterated the importance of ensuring that any request to cross-examine additional witnesses during committal proceedings is substantiated by substantial reasons and is in the interests of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to call the witness Moragollage Senevirathna is refused

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

HOWIE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HOWIE J

Full text does not contain this section.