Burns v Redland City Council

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Burns v Redland City Council [2025] QDC 39

PARTIES: 

DARREN BURNS
(Appellant)

v

REDLANDS CITY COUNCIL  
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

 621/24

DIVISION:

 Criminal

PROCEEDING:

 Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT: 

 Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

On the papers 

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Application by the appellant for an order for costs of the trial below is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWER TO AWARD COSTS – where the appellant was convicted of carrying out prohibited development contrary to s. 162 Planning Act 2016 – where the appellant was successful in having the conviction set aside on appeal – where s 158A(1) Justices Act imposed a condition on the Court’s discretion to award costs by reason that the complainant is a public officer – whether under that section the defendant had right to costs or carried an onus to satisfy the Court that an order for costs was proper – where the Court was not so satisfied – whether, if the Court had been satisfied, it was just and reasonable to award costs above the scale due to the special difficulty, complexity or importance of the appeal – where the trial was of special difficulty and complexity – whether costs would have been awarded above the scale of costs

CASES:

LEGISLATION:

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Baker v Smith (No. 2) [2019] QDC 242

Burns v Redland City Council [2025] QDC 15

Hickey v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2008] QDC 340

SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57

Vukolic v Browning [2022] QDC 279

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s. 22(2)

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss. 158, 158A, 158B and 225

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) s. 237(2)

Planning Act2016 (Qld) s. 162

A. Preston for the appellant

K. Wylie and K. O’Hare for the respondent

Queensland South Native Title Services Ltd for the appellant

Council Legal Services for the respondent

1. On 28 February 2025, for the reasons set out in Burns v Redland City Council [2025] QDC 15, I upheld an appeal by Mr Burns against his conviction on one count of carrying out prohibited development in breach of s. 162 Planning Act. These reasons adopt the defined terms contained in that judgment unless otherwise stated.

2. Amongst the orders I made on that occasion were orders setting aside the learned Magistrates costs orders made at trial.  These reasons deal with the question of costs on the trial and on the appeal.  Mr Burns seeks no order for costs of the appeal.  The only issue remaining in the appeal is the question of what, if any, costs order should be made in respect of the costs of the trial in the light of Mr Burns’ success on the appeal.

Principles

1. This Court has the same powers as the Magistrates Court to make orders for costs of a trial which is the subject of an appeal to this Court.[1] The effect of my orders on the…