Crossman v Commissioner of Police - [2016] QCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crossman v Commissioner of Police [2016] QCA 75

PARTIES:

CROSSMAN, Ian Norman
(applicant)
v
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 279 of 2015
DC No 85 of 2015
DC No 93 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – [2015] QDC 265

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2016

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Burns J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was detected exceeding the speed limit at Cairns on two separate occasions – where the applicant gave the requisite notice of intention to challenge the operation or condition of the detection devices used in both instances – where summary trials in the Magistrates Court proceeded and concluded with decisions being made on 20 March 2015 and 30 April 2015 respectively, convicting the applicant of both speeding offences – where the applicant appealed the decisions made to the District Court at Cairns – where the appeals were heard together – where the District Court granted leave and dismissed both appeals – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – where the applicant submits there are inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution in both Magistrate Court trials – where the applicant submits the evidence presented should not have been afforded any weight and therefore cannot establish the alleged offences – whether the applicant can demonstrate a substantial injustice which requires correction, or that the decision below is infected by an error of law

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 112, s 120

R v Al Shakarji[2016] QCA 29, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M T Whitbread for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Gotterson JA’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal.
GOTTERSON JA: The applicant, Ian Norman Crossman, has applied for leave pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) to appeal to this Court against the decision of a judge of the District Court at Cairns given on 29 October 2015.[1] In the proceeding before him, the learned primary judge extended time for the applicant to appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) against decisions given in two separate matters in the Magistrates Court at Cairns on 20 March 2015 and 30 April 2015 respectively. His Honour ordered that each appeal be dismissed.
[1]Application for Leave to Appeal filed 17 November 2015: AB394-396.
By the decision given on 20 March 2015, the applicant was found…

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 Crossman v Commissioner of Police

Details

AGLC: Crossman v Commissioner of Police [2016] QCA 75
Case: [2016] QCA 75
Decision Date: 1 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Crossman v Commissioner of Police, the applicant was convicted of two speeding offences in the Magistrates Court at Cairns, following detections on two separate occasions. The applicant appealed these convictions to the District Court, which dismissed both appeals. Subsequently, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and that the evidence presented should not have been considered, thereby preventing the establishment of the alleged offences. The central legal issues were whether the applicant could demonstrate a substantial injustice warranting correction, or if the decision below was affected by an error of law.

The Court of Appeal examined the applicant's contentions concerning the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Court assessed whether these alleged inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the reliability of the evidence or if they constituted a substantial injustice. Furthermore, the Court scrutinized whether the District Court's decision was influenced by an error of law. After careful deliberation, the Court found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for demonstrating a substantial injustice or an error of law that would warrant further appellate review. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was unsuccessful. The Court found that the applicant failed to substantiate the presence of a substantial injustice or an error of law in the District Court's decision. As a result, the Court upheld the District Court's dismissal of the applicant's appeals and denied the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused.

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:	Crossman v Commissioner of Police [2016] QCA 75
PARTIES:	CROSSMAN, Ian Norman (applicant) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 279 of 2015 DC No 85 of 2015 DC No 93 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – [2015] QDC 265
DELIVERED ON:	1 April 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Burns J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was detected exceeding the speed limit at Cairns on two separate occasions – where the applicant gave the requisite notice of intention to challenge the operation or condition of the detection devices used in both instances – where summary trials in the Magistrates Court proceeded and concluded with decisions being made on 20 March 2015 and 30 April 2015 respectively, convicting the applicant of both speeding offences – where the applicant appealed the decisions made to the District Court at Cairns – where the appeals were heard together – where the District Court granted leave and dismissed both appeals – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – where the applicant submits there are inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution in both Magistrate Court trials – where the applicant submits the evidence presented should not have been afforded any weight and therefore cannot establish the alleged offences – whether the applicant can demonstrate a substantial injustice which requires correction, or that the decision below is infected by an error of law Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 112, s 120 R v Al Shakarji[2016] QCA 29, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M T Whitbread for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent