Constable S J Miers v Blewett

In the case of Constable S J Miers v Blewett, the respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court of two offences under section 80(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld). The respondent had previously been convicted of two offences against section 80(1) of the same Act. The prosecution sought to tender the whole of the respondent’s criminal history. However, the Magistrate rejected the tendering of the respondent’s criminal history as the prosecution had not served notice under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The respondent appealed to the District Court, which upheld the Magistrate’s decision. The respondent argued that the lack of notice under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) had the effect of preventing the court from taking the two previous convictions into account. The respondent also argued that evidence of the two previous convictions for offences against section 80(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act should be admissible and that other prior non-domestic violence offence convictions of the respondent should have been taken into account in determining the sentence.

The court considered whether the lack of notice under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) had the effect of preventing the court from taking the two previous convictions into account. The court found that the prosecution was not required to give notice of the previous convictions under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) as the previous convictions were not being relied upon to raise the maximum sentence. The court also found that the District Court Judge did not err in affirming the Magistrate’s ruling that the respondent’s criminal history was inadmissible. The court held that the District Court Judge had correctly found that the previous convictions were not admissible as the prosecution had not given notice under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The court further held that the previous convictions should not have been taken into account in determining the sentence as they were not admissible.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the application for leave to appeal, to be assessed. The court found that the District Court Judge had correctly applied the law and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The court held that the District Court Judge had correctly found that the previous convictions were not admissible as the prosecution had not given notice under section 47(5) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The court further held that the previous convictions should not have been taken into account in determining the sentence as they were not admissible. The court found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the appeal.