Courtney v Peacock

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Courtney v Peacock [2008] QDC 87

PARTIES:

RAMOND JAMES COURTNEY

Appellant

AND

SHANE WILLIAM PEACOCK

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD343/06

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 January 2007

JUDGE:

Nase DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal is allowed;

2.   Conviction and sentence are set aside; and

3.   A verdict of not guilty is entered

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – whether Magistrate erred in finding there was evidence sufficient to support a conviction of disorderly behaviour
Summary Offences Act 2005
Cases considered
Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (1975) 132 CLR 473

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

Mr M Hungerford‑Symes appeared on behalf of the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

The Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

1. On the morning of 24 June 2005 Mr Courtney, the appellant before me, made his way to the intersection of Finucane, Old Cleveland, and Moreton Bay Roads at Capalaba.  He had gone there to hold up signs accusing the police and the Queensland Labor Party of corruption and dishonesty. It was something he had done many times. Typical of the signs he had that day was one which proclaimed “ALP cops cover up ALP scum”.  Another had written on it “Premeditated beating and verbal by Nazi ALP police for speaking out against APL corruption”.  He had a number of other slogans, all somewhat similar in their lack of imagination, and, I think, some unnecessarily offensive.

1. Mr Courtney claims to be a whistleblower who has, in the past, exposed corruption in public life.  This day he believed he was entitled to go there and hold up the signs for the occupants of passing cars to see.  He saw his actions that day as a political act protected by the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of communication about government and political matters.

1. Whether these signs were protected or not by the Constitution, two police officers passing that day found them to be very offensive. The two police officers, a PC Senior Constable Shane William Peacock and a Constable Craig Andrew Quinn, decided to “place him under observation”, I assume, from the relative comfort of their police vehicle. After watching him for about 10 minutes or so, they approached him and placed him under arrest. He was searched and taken back to the police station. Ultimately he was not charged with any offence directly relating to the message or signs, although, from their statements the two police officers obviously took the messages very personally.[1]

   [1]Senior Constable Shane William Peacock said that he was offended by the signs and felt personally insulted (T 7, 11), and thought that simply displaying the signs constituted an offence against the Summary Offences Act (T 11).

The charge

1. Instead, Mr Courtney was prosecuted for a public nuisance offence under the  Summary Offences Act 2005 on the basis that he behaved in a disorderly way and interfered (or his disorderly behaviour was…