Commissioner of Police v Parsons - [2011] QDC 41

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Commissioner of Police v Parsons [2011] QDC 41

PARTIES:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

(Appellant)

v

ADRIAN ANTHONY PARSONS

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

83/2010

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from Magistrate’s Court

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

8 April, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

(1) Verdict of acquittal set aside

(2) Find the defendant guilty, as charged, of speeding

CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:
CASES:

APPEAL – admissibility a tendered document

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management Act) 1995 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management Act – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (Qld)

Hill v Lette [2010] QDC 136

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Lekic v Dixon [2009] QDC 111

COUNSEL:

Mr B Power for the appellant

The respondent appeared self represented

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant

The respondent appeared self represented

Introduction

The appellant seeks to appeal against a verdict of acquittal by the learned magistrate at Beenleigh in respect of a charge against the respondent of disobeying the speed limit.[1]
[1]Section 20 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999.

Magistrates Court Trial

The trial proceeded before the learned magistrate at Beenleigh on 24 March 2010. The alleged offence occurred on 19 June 2009. The outline of the proceedings which follows draws from the Outline of the Appellant’s Submissions.

The prosecution called Senior Constable Lachlan McGraa and Sergeant Ian Crang as witnesses.

Senior Constable McGraa gave evidence in chief as follows:-

(a) At the commencement of his shift on 19 June 2009 he conducted a number of daily confidence checks upon ultra-light LIDAR serial no. UX008727 and found it suitable for use.

(b) He is a qualified operator of the ultra-light LIDAR 20 speed detection device. He attended a course some years ago and has recently attended an upgrade course or re-qualification for that device.

(c) Exhibit 1 was identified as a calibration certificate for ultra-light LIDAR serial no. UX008727.

(d) At 12.35 am on 20 June 2009 Senior Constable McGraa was located on the north bound lanes of the Pacific Motorway at Tanah Merah conducting speed detection on vehicles that were travelling northbound. The speed limit applicable to this part of the road is 100 kilometres per hour.

(e) At this time Senior Constable McGraa observed a vehicle travelling in excess of that speed and targeted the vehicle with the ultra-light LIDAR serial no. UX008727 on a number of occasions. Initial detection was 116 kilometres per hour and a final reading was 120 kilometres per hour.

(f) Senior Constable McGraa advised Sergeant Crang who was the driver of the vehicle Senior Constable McGraa was in, and they pulled out behind the vehicle which had been travelling in excess of the speed limit. This vehicle was intercepted in the vicinity of exit 28.

(g) Exhibit 2 was identified as a certificate stating that the particular laser-based speed detection device serial no. UX008727 that Senior Constable…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Commissioner of Police v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Commissioner of Police v Parsons [2011] QDC 41
Case: [2011] QDC 41
Decision Date: 8 April, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a challenge by the defendant to the admissibility of a tendered document, which was a key piece of evidence in a speeding charge brought by the Commissioner of Police. The defendant, Parsons, argued that the document should not be admitted as evidence on the basis that it was not properly authenticated. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the court was required to determine the admissibility of the tendered document and its impact on the outcome of the speeding charge.

The court was tasked with examining the legal principles governing the admissibility of documents in evidence, particularly focusing on the rules of authentication. The court needed to assess whether the tendered document met the requirements for admissibility under the Evidence Act, including whether it was properly identified and whether it was shown to be what it purported to be. The court also needed to consider the impact of any potential errors in the admission of the document on the overall verdict of the case.

In its judgment, the court found that the tendered document was indeed properly authenticated and met the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act. The court held that the document was correctly identified and was shown to be what it purported to be, thereby satisfying the requirements for admissibility. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge had erred in excluding the document, and this error was sufficiently significant to affect the outcome of the case. As a result, the court set aside the verdict of acquittal and found the defendant guilty of the speeding charge as originally charged.

The court ordered that the verdict of acquittal be set aside and that the defendant be found guilty, as charged, of speeding. The court's decision highlighted the importance of proper authentication of documents in evidence and the potential consequences of errors in the admission of evidence on the outcome of a case.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict of acquittal set aside

(2) Find the defendant guilty, as charged, of speeding

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.

CITATION:	Commissioner of Police v Parsons [2011] QDC 41
PARTIES:	COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (Appellant) v ADRIAN ANTHONY PARSONS (Respondent)
FILE NO:	83/2010
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from Magistrate’s Court
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	8 April, 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2011
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	(1) Verdict of acquittal set aside (2) Find the defendant guilty, as charged, of speeding
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: CASES:	APPEAL – admissibility a tendered document Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) Transport Operations (Road Use Management Act) 1995 (Qld) Transport Operations (Road Use Management Act – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (Qld) Hill v Lette [2010] QDC 136 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lekic v Dixon [2009] QDC 111
COUNSEL:	Mr B Power for the appellant The respondent appeared self represented
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant The respondent appeared self represented