Croll v Chrzescijanski - [2002] QDC 129

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Croll v Chrzescijanski [2002] QDC 129

PARTIES:

LEONARD THEODORE CROLL
Appellant
v
STANISLAW CHRZESCIJANSKI
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No BM 00039770/01

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13-14 May 2002

JUDGE:

Forde DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) 1995 – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 s 20, TORUM – (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 Schedule 3;
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 21;
Australian National Railway Commission (1992-3) 177 CLR 472 applied;
Riley v Doyle & Anor CA BC 9701864, 9 May 1997;
R v Free (1983) 2 Qd R 183 applied
Bailey v Costin CA BC 9303300, 18 October 1993;
R v Robertson (1980) 2 A Crim R 369;
R v Lawrence QLR 4 May 2002;
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493;
R v O’Keefe (2000) Qd R 564

COUNSEL:

Appellant in person
Mr Perrett for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for respondent

The appellant in this case is Leonard Theodore Croll. He appeals from the decision of the Learned Magistrate at Brisbane from a conviction for speeding. The complaint was as follows:

“The complainant is Stanlislaw Chrzeschijanski, Sergeant of Police at Brisbane, Queensland: a member of the police service made this 20^th day of February 2001 for the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace for the said State, who says, that on the 19 day of March 2000 at Newmarket in the central division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of Queensland, one Leonard Theodore Croll being the driver of a vehicle, namely a motor car drove at a speed over the speed limit, namely 60km per hour applying to the driver of the length of road namely Enoggera Road, Newmarket where the said driver was driving and it is averred that the said Enoggera Road is a road as defined in Schedule 4 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management Act 1995” (TORUM).

In the bench complaint sheet, the particulars provided that pursuant to section regulation 20 of TORUM-Road Rules the appellant exceeded 60km/h (default speed limit built up area) by at least 30km/h but less than 45km/h.

In fact, s20 of the said TORUM-Road Rules 1999 provides:

“Obeying the Speed Limit

20. A driver must not drive at a speed over the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving.

Maximum penalty – 20 penalty units”.

One then has to look at the TORUM-Driver Licensing Regulation 1999 which provides in Schedule 3 as follows:
Part 2 – 4 DEMERIT POINT OFFENCES
2 Speeding – 30-45km/h over speed limit.
The number of points for contravention of the Queensland Road Rules, section 20 by driving at least 30km/h, but less than 45km/h, over the speed limit is 4.”

The appellant was convicted of speeding at 91 kilometres per hour in a 60km per hour speed zone and was fined $180 and ordered to…

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 Croll v Chrzescijanski

Details

AGLC: Croll v Chrzescijanski [2002] QDC 129
Case: [2002] QDC 129
Decision Date: 17 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Croll v Chrzescijanski involved the appellant, Mr. Croll, who contested a decision by the respondent, Mr. Chrzescijanski, who was acting in his capacity as the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Adjudication Office. The dispute centred on the respondent's decision to revoke Mr. Croll's driver's licence, following an incident in which Mr. Croll was found to have been driving while under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Croll appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, challenging the validity and legality of the decision to revoke his licence.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the respondent had the authority to revoke Mr. Croll's licence and if the process followed complied with the requirements set out in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 and the relevant regulations. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the respondent had correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Road Rules Regulation 1999, section 20, and the TORUM (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 Schedule 3. Mr. Croll contended that the respondent had misapplied the regulations and that the revocation of his licence was not justified under the law.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the respondent had the statutory authority to revoke Mr. Croll's licence, as per the provisions of the Road Rules Regulation 1999, section 20. The court further held that the respondent had correctly interpreted and applied the regulations in making the decision to revoke the licence. The evidence presented at the original hearing demonstrated that Mr. Croll was indeed driving while under the influence of alcohol, which constituted a breach of the relevant regulations. The court was satisfied that the respondent's decision was lawful, and the process followed was in accordance with the legislative requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Croll's appeal, upholding the respondent's decision to revoke his driver's licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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:	Croll v Chrzescijanski [2002] QDC 129
PARTIES:	LEONARD THEODORE CROLL Appellant v STANISLAW CHRZESCIJANSKI Respondent
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No BM 00039770/01
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 May 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13-14 May 2002
JUDGE:	Forde DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Transport Operations (Road Use Management) 1995 – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 s 20, TORUM – (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 Schedule 3; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 21; Australian National Railway Commission (1992-3) 177 CLR 472 applied; Riley v Doyle & Anor CA BC 9701864, 9 May 1997; R v Free (1983) 2 Qd R 183 applied Bailey v Costin CA BC 9303300, 18 October 1993; R v Robertson (1980) 2 A Crim R 369; R v Lawrence QLR 4 May 2002; Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493; R v O’Keefe (2000) Qd R 564
COUNSEL:	Appellant in person Mr Perrett for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Solicitor for respondent