Cox v Robinson - [2000] QCA 454

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Cox v Robinson [2000] QCA 454

PARTIES: COX, Donna Maree
(respondent)
v
ROBINSON, Luke Travis
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2000
DC Appeal No 2 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Charleville

DELIVERED ON: 7 November 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 26 October 2000

JUDGES:
Davies, Pincus and Thomas JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: Application for leave to appeal granted and appeal to this Court from the District Court allowed. The order of Judge Wylie of 2 June 2000 dismissing the appeal from the orders of Mr Casey SM set aside; the order of Mr Casey SM dated 20 March 2000 convicting the appellant quashed and the sentence imposed set aside and in lieu order that the charge be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER – ASSAULTING, RESISTING, HINDERING, OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE OFFICER – PARTICULAR ACTS - whether offence of obstructing police under s 120 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 made out where applicant failed to comply with “Identifying Particulars Notice” within the 48 hours specified for compliance - whether warning in small print on notice sufficient compliance with duty to give warning pursuant to s 57(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 - warning requirement an ingredient of the offence – warning must be such as would reasonably be expected to convey to the particular recipient the message that non-compliance will be an offence

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 (Qld), s 57(1)(b)(ii), s 57(3), s 120
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 272, s 445

COUNSEL: B G Devereaux for the applicant/appellant
T A C Winn for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Thomas JA and with the orders he proposes.

PINCUS JA: I agree with Thomas JA.

THOMAS JA: In the Magistrates Court at Charleville the applicant was convicted of obstructing a police officer. He appealed to the District Court which dismissed the appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court.

On 6 October 1999 two police officers spoke to the applicant who was at that time facing a charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. They told him that they had to get his fingerprints, and served him with a Notice to Attend the Magistrates Court on 9 November 1999 and a further "Identifying Particulars Notice". The latter notice contained various information identifying the applicant and the police constable who issued it. It included the following statement:

"You are required to attend at the below
police station within 48 HOURS to enable a
police officer to take or photograph all or
any of your identifying particulars.
WARNING. It is…

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 Cox v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Cox v Robinson [2000] QCA 454
Case: [2000] QCA 454
Decision Date: 7 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cox v Robinson, the applicant contested a conviction under section 120 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 (Qld), which pertains to obstructing police officers. The applicant was found not to have complied with a "Identifying Particulars Notice" within the stipulated 48-hour period. The core issue revolved around whether this failure constituted the offence of obstructing a police officer and whether the warning provided on the notice was adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 57(3) of the Act. This section mandates that a warning must be given, which reasonably conveys the message that non-compliance with the notice will be considered an offence.

The legal matters before the court encompassed the interpretation of section 120 and whether the applicant's failure to comply with the notice within the specified timeframe constituted an offence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the warning provided in small print on the notice met the statutory requirement. The court was tasked with examining whether the warning was sufficient to inform the recipient that non-compliance with the notice would be considered an offence. The court needed to ensure that the warning was such as would reasonably be expected to convey this message to the specific individual.

The court found that the warning provided in small print was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement under section 57(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997. Given this finding, the court held that the applicant's failure to comply with the notice did not constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The sentence imposed was set aside, and in its place, an order was made that the charge be dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of clear and conspicuous warnings in legal notices to ensure compliance and the validity of any resultant convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted and appeal to this Court from the District Court allowed. The order of Judge Wylie of 2 June 2000 dismissing the appeal from the orders of Mr Casey SM set aside; the order of Mr Casey SM dated 20 March 2000 convicting the appellant quashed and the sentence imposed set aside and in lieu order that the charge be dismissed.

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:	Cox v Robinson [2000] QCA 454
PARTIES:	COX, Donna Maree (respondent) v ROBINSON, Luke Travis (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 175 of 2000 DC Appeal No 2 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Charleville
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 October 2000
JUDGES:	Davies, Pincus and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal granted and appeal to this Court from the District Court allowed. The order of Judge Wylie of 2 June 2000 dismissing the appeal from the orders of Mr Casey SM set aside; the order of Mr Casey SM dated 20 March 2000 convicting the appellant quashed and the sentence imposed set aside and in lieu order that the charge be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER – ASSAULTING, RESISTING, HINDERING, OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE OFFICER – PARTICULAR ACTS - whether offence of obstructing police under s 120 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 made out where applicant failed to comply with “Identifying Particulars Notice” within the 48 hours specified for compliance - whether warning in small print on notice sufficient compliance with duty to give warning pursuant to s 57(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 - warning requirement an ingredient of the offence – warning must be such as would reasonably be expected to convey to the particular recipient the message that non-compliance will be an offence Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1997 (Qld), s 57(1)(b)(ii), s 57(3), s 120 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 272, s 445
COUNSEL:	B G Devereaux for the applicant/appellant T A C Winn for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent