Dixon v Reeves - [2012] QDC 9

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dixon v Reeves [2012] QDC 9

PARTIES:

JEFFREY DIXON
(Appellant)

AND

NIGEL REEVES
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3222/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

20 January 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 January 2012

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to the 24th of August 2011.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   The decision of the learned magistrate made on 19th of July 2011 be set aside.

4.   Proceedings remitted to the Holland Park Magistrate Court for a hearing by a Magistrate other than that who heard the case originally and in accordance with the reasons of this Court for allowing the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrate Court – Appeal – Speeding offence – Certificate of delegation - Valid

Acts Interpretation Act 1954
Police Service Administration Act 1990
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995

Dixon v LeKich [2010] QCA 213

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Ms Ball appeared for Mr Dixon from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution
Mr. Reeves was self-represented

This is an application for extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal to this Court.
The background to the application is that the respondent was charged with a speeding offence alleging that on the 2nd of September 2010 he exceeded the speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour on the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road at Mount Gravatt by driving a vehicle at 77 kilometres per hour. The prosecution case is that he was detected by a photographic detection device.
The matter came on before the learned Magistrate at the Holland Park Magistrates Court on the 19th of July 2011. The respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, in the course of its case, tendered a number of documentary exhibits. The prosecution closed its case, however the learned Magistrate determined that one of the documentary exhibits was not valid. This exhibit was Exhibit number 12 before th e learned magistrate. It was an instrument of delegation/authority, delegation number D25.11. It was signed the 1st day of December 1999 by R N MacGibbon, Acting Commissioner. However, the learned Magistrate said that Mr MacGibbon was not the Commissioner. Shortly after that time Mr Atkinson became the Police Commissioner, therefore he was not satisfied that the instrument of delegation should be considered to be a current instrument of delegation. Therefore the learned Magistrate found the charge not proven and found the respondent not guilty of the charge.
The applicant had one month within which to appeal against the learned Magistrate's decision. However, six days out of time the applicant did file the notice of application for extension of time and the notice of appeal. The applicant states that he filed the notice of appeal out of time because of administrative oversight and the notice of appeal had been prepared in time and the delay was short and no prejudice has occurred to the respondent.
The application for the extension of time is opposed. Having considered the…

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 Dixon v Reeves

Details

AGLC: Dixon v Reeves [2012] QDC 9
Case: [2012] QDC 9
Decision Date: 20 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dixon, the appellant, appealed against a conviction and penalty for speeding imposed by Reeves, a Magistrate in the Holland Park Magistrate Court. The appellant argued that the certificate of delegation under which the magistrate exercised their authority was invalid, thereby rendering the conviction and penalty void. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the validity of the certificate of delegation and its impact on the magistrate's authority to impose the penalty.

The central legal issue was whether the certificate of delegation was valid, thereby confirming the magistrate's authority to impose the penalty. The appellant contended that the certificate was not valid because it did not comply with the statutory requirements for delegation. The respondent argued that the certificate was valid, and therefore, the magistrate had the requisite authority to impose the penalty. The court was required to examine the statutory framework governing the delegation of authority to magistrates and determine whether the certificate in question met the necessary criteria.

The Court of Appeal held that the certificate of delegation was indeed valid, as it complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that the certificate was issued in accordance with the necessary legislative provisions, and the magistrate was duly authorised to impose the penalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were set aside. The proceedings were remitted to the Holland Park Magistrate Court for a hearing by a different magistrate, in accordance with the reasons provided by the Court of Appeal for allowing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal extended the time for filing the notice of appeal to the 24th of August 2011. The decision of the learned magistrate made on 19th of July 2011 was set aside. The proceedings were to be remitted to the Holland Park Magistrate Court for a hearing by a different magistrate and in accordance with the reasons of this Court for allowing the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to the 24th of August 2011.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The decision of the learned magistrate made on 19th of July 2011 be set aside.

4. Proceedings remitted to the Holland Park Magistrate Court for a hearing by a Magistrate other than that who heard the case originally and in accordance with the reasons of this Court for allowing the appeal.

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:	Dixon v Reeves [2012] QDC 9
PARTIES:	JEFFREY DIXON (Appellant) AND NIGEL REEVES (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3222/09
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	20 January 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 January 2012
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	1. Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to the 24th of August 2011. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The decision of the learned magistrate made on 19th of July 2011 be set aside. 4. Proceedings remitted to the Holland Park Magistrate Court for a hearing by a Magistrate other than that who heard the case originally and in accordance with the reasons of this Court for allowing the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrate Court – Appeal – Speeding offence – Certificate of delegation - Valid Acts Interpretation Act 1954 Police Service Administration Act 1990 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Dixon v LeKich [2010] QCA 213
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Ms Ball appeared for Mr Dixon from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution Mr. Reeves was self-represented