Branch v Commissioner of Police

In the matter of Branch v Commissioner of Police, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider an application for leave to appeal a decision of the District Court of Queensland. The applicant, Mr Branch, had been charged with the traffic offence of unlawful edge filtering. Mr Branch appealed his conviction to the District Court, arguing that the hearing before the magistrate had been unfair and that the police officer's evidence should not have been accepted due to inconsistencies with traffic data and a recording tendered at the trial. The District Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there had been no procedural unfairness and that the new evidence could not have undermined the police officer's evidence.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal centred on the principles governing applications for leave to appeal. The Court noted that leave should not be granted lightly, particularly given that Mr Branch had already had the benefit of two judicial hearings. The Court also noted that an appeal is usually only necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant. In this case, the new evidence from the department indicated that the police officer was mistaken about his recollection of the speed limit at various points along the road, although his evidence as to the speed limit at the relevant location was accurate. The Court found that this inaccuracy was not a substantial basis for the rejection of his evidence overall.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court judge had conducted a rehearing of the case and reached his own conclusions. The magistrate's decision was based on his findings of the credibility of the two witnesses, and the Court was required to make proper allowance for the advantages of the magistrate in seeing and hearing the evidence as it was given. The Court found that the police officer's evidence was not inconsistent with the evidence from the department about traffic congestion and that there was nothing to suggest that the officer was seeking to fabricate or exaggerate the facts or that he was mistaken. The Court found that the District Court judge did not err in his conduct of the rehearing or in his findings of fact. The application for leave to appeal was refused.