Campbell v Galea

Case [2019] QDC 53

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campbell v Galea [2019] QDC 53

PARTIES:

SENIOR CONSTABLE DARRYL CAMPBELL
(appellant)

v

MARK GALEA
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 170 of 2017

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

18 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2018 and 2 November 2018

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The appellant is granted leave to file an amended notice of appeal and the time for doing so is extended to 11 January 2018.1.          

The order made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 that the respondent be placed on probation for the offence of possession of a controlled drug without authority on 23 September 2017, be varied to be that the respondent is convicted and not punished for that offence.2.          

Otherwise, the orders made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 are confirmed. 3.          

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCING PROVISIONS – where respondent pleaded guilty to various offences including an offence of failure to stop a motor vehicle under s 754 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 – where respondent was sentenced to 2 years probation for failure to stop offence – whether the magistrate erred in imposing probation for the fail to stop offence – whether s 754 excluded imposition of probation orders – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in all of the circumstances – whether a case should be stated pursuant to s 227 Justices Act 1886

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, ss 4, 14A, 14B, 36, 41
Criminal Code, ss 648, 650
District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s 118
Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996, s 51(1)
Justices Act 1886, s 222, 224, 225, 227
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, ss 3, 4, 45, 46, 47, 47, 91, 92, 94, 101, 103, 112, 113, 144, 153, 153A, 160A, 180A
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 5, 754

CASES:

Commissioner of the Police Service  v Magistrate Spencer & Ors [2013] QSC 202
Cronin v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 63
Doig v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 320
Forbes v Jingle [2014] QDC 204
Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601
Pogadaev v Commissioner of Police [2015] QCA 25
Pogadaev v Stewart [2016] QDC 316
R v Ham& Anor [2016] QDC 255
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Re Australian Federation of Construction Contract Laws; ex parte Billing (1986) 68 ALR 416 at 420
Re Bolton; ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514
Sbresniv Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 18
Skinner v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 138
Uittenbosch v Department of Corrective Services [2006] 1 Qd. R. 565
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 484

COUNSEL:

E Kennedy for the appellant

C Reid for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Queensland Police Service Legal Services Unit for the appellant

Legal…

Continue reading Campbell v Galea

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Campbell v Galea [2019] QDC 53
Case
[2019] QDC 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Campbell v Galea, the appellant contested the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The respondent had pleaded guilty to various offences, including an offence of failing to stop a motor vehicle under section 754 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The sentence imposed by the magistrate included a two-year probation order for the failure to stop offence. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in imposing probation for the failure to stop offence and questioned whether section 754 excluded the imposition of probation orders. Additionally, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances and sought a case to be stated under section 227 of the Justices Act 1886.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the magistrate erred in imposing probation for the failure to stop offence, whether section 754 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 precluded the imposition of probation orders, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the applicable sentencing principles under the Sentencing Act 1991. The court held that the magistrate had indeed erred in imposing probation for the failure to stop offence as the relevant statutory provision did not allow for such a sentence. The court also found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the offences committed by the respondent. Consequently, the court determined that a case should be stated under section 227 of the Justices Act 1886.

The court granted the appellant leave to file an amended notice of appeal and extended the time for doing so to 11 January 2018. The order made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 that the respondent be placed on probation for the offence of possession of a controlled drug without authority on 23 September 2017 was varied to be that the respondent is convicted and not punished for that offence. The remaining orders made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 were confirmed. This decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and applying appropriate sentencing principles in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant is granted leave to file an amended notice of appeal and the time for doing so is extended to 11 January 2018.1.

The order made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 that the respondent be placed on probation for the offence of possession of a controlled drug without authority on 23 September 2017, be varied to be that the respondent is convicted and not punished for that offence.2.

Otherwise, the orders made by the sentencing magistrate on 1 November 2017 are confirmed. 3.

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.