DMK v CAG

[2016] QDC 106

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DMK v CAG [2016] QDC 106

PARTIES:

DMK
(appellant)
v
CAG  
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

APPEAL NO: D110/15

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2016

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.     The orders made in the Magistrates Court on 24 June 2015 are affirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal – domestic and family violence - protection order – relevant relationship – whether domestic violence committed – whether order “desirable” to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence.

Legislation

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 4, 18, 37, 84, 164, 168 and 169

Cases

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Commissioner of Police v Toomer [2012] QCA 233
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248
SCJ v ELT [2011] QDC 100
DGS v GRS [2012] QDC 74
MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] 2 Qd R 271
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513

COUNSEL:

J Trevino for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellant was self represented
Public Safety Business Agency for the Respondent

1. The appellant appeals to overturn the domestic violence protection order made by the Magistrates Court on 24 June 2015 pursuant to s 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (“the Act”). 


Background

1. The originating application for a Domestic Violence Protection Order was heard on an interim basis in the Magistrates Court at Cairns on 13 March 2015, with final orders made on 24 June 2015.

1. There was no dispute that a relevant relationship existed between the appellant and respondent for the purposes of the Act. The parties had been in a de-facto relationship for almost ten years before separating in July 2010, and they continue in a parenting relationship with the respondent as the primary caregiver.

1. The trial magistrate heard evidence from the respondent, Mr Brooker, Senior Constable Pearson, Senior Constable South, Detective Senior Constable McNeill, Constable Lax, Senior Sergeant Craig, and the appellant.  His Honour also had regard to the following court orders in existence between the parties:

1.       Family Court Order concerning the appellant and respondent and their children made on 2 October 2013;

2.       Protection Order made against the respondent on 10 October 2013 (and varied on 27 February 2014) naming the appellant as the aggrieved; and

3.       Temporary Protection Order made on 16 October 2014, with the consent of the appellant and respondent, with the respondent as the aggrieved.

1. The magistrate heard and accurately summarised the evidence…