Courtney v Thomson - [2007] QCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Courtney v Thomson [2007] QCA 49

PARTIES:

COURTNEY, Raymond James
(appellant/applicant/appellant)
v
THOMSON, Michael Geoffrey
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 278 of 2006
DC No 4404 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Holmes JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. The applicant be granted leave to appeal in respect of the decision of the District Court so far as it upheld the conviction on the charge of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty
2. The appeal be allowed, the conviction on that charge quashed, and the penalty imposed in respect of that conviction set aside
3. There be no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - OTHER MATTERS -

where the applicant was protesting adjacent to a busy road – where the applicant was convicted of obstructing police – where the applicant was found in possession of a knife and convicted – where the arresting officer failed to particularise the grounds for arrest – whether the convictions should be upheld

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 444(1)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 51(1)

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D MacKenzie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: This is an application brought under s 118 of the District Court Act 1967 (Qld) for leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court given on an appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

On 31 October 2005, the applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court, following a hearing, of these offences committed on 29 April 2005 at Capalaba: committing a public nuisance offence; physically possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse; and obstructing a police officer, Sgt Thomson, in the performance of his duty. The Magistrate imposed a global fine of $300 and did not record convictions.

The applicant represented himself before the Magistrate, and before the District Court Judge, who said in his reasons for judgment that he had therefore carefully reconsidered all of the material before the Magistrate. The Judge upheld the appeal in relation to the first conviction, for the commission of a public nuisance offence, and dismissed the appeal in respect of the other offences, the possession of the knife and obstructing the police officer. His Honour varied the penalty to a $50 fine in respect of each of those two latter convictions.

The public nuisance charge arose from the applicant’s displaying signs on a footpath…

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 Courtney v Thomson

Details

AGLC: Courtney v Thomson [2007] QCA 49
Case: [2007] QCA 49
Decision Date: 23 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted of obstructing a police officer and possessing a knife while protesting adjacent to a busy road. The District Court upheld both convictions, leading to the applicant seeking leave to appeal. The court had to determine whether the convictions should stand, focusing on the validity of the grounds for arrest and the evidence supporting the charges.

The primary legal issue was whether the arresting officer had sufficient grounds to arrest the applicant and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court examined the particularisation of the arrest grounds and the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence. The applicant argued that the officer failed to specify the grounds for arrest, rendering the arrest unlawful, and thus any evidence obtained as a result was inadmissible. The court had to decide if the convictions could be sustained despite these arguments.

The court found that the officer's failure to particularise the grounds for arrest rendered the arrest unlawful, and any evidence obtained thereafter was inadmissible. The court quashed the conviction for obstructing a police officer, finding that the evidence was tainted and insufficient to support the conviction. The court did not quash the conviction for possessing a knife, finding that the evidence was independently obtained and sufficient to support that conviction. The applicant was granted leave to appeal, and the conviction for obstructing a police officer was quashed, with the penalty set aside. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant be granted leave to appeal in respect of the decision of the District Court so far as it upheld the conviction on the charge of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty

2. The appeal be allowed, the conviction on that charge quashed, and the penalty imposed in respect of that conviction set aside

3. There be no order as to costs

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:	Courtney v Thomson [2007] QCA 49
PARTIES:	COURTNEY, Raymond James (appellant/applicant/appellant) v THOMSON, Michael Geoffrey (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 278 of 2006 DC No 4404 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Holmes JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. The applicant be granted leave to appeal in respect of the decision of the District Court so far as it upheld the conviction on the charge of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty 2. The appeal be allowed, the conviction on that charge quashed, and the penalty imposed in respect of that conviction set aside 3. There be no order as to costs
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - OTHER MATTERS - where the applicant was protesting adjacent to a busy road – where the applicant was convicted of obstructing police – where the applicant was found in possession of a knife and convicted – where the arresting officer failed to particularise the grounds for arrest – whether the convictions should be upheld Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 444(1) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 51(1) Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D MacKenzie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent