Dore v Penny - [2005] QCA 150

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150

PARTIES:

EDMUND PAUL DORE
(appellant/applicant)
ROBERT JOHN DORE
(appellant/applicant)
GARY JAMES DORE
(appellant/applicant)
v
STEPHEN FRACIS PENNY
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 368 of 2004
CA No 366 of 2004
CA No 367 of 2004
DC No 200 of 2004
DC No 201 of 2004
DC No 202 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

11 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Wilson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. In CA No 368 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused
2. In CA No 366 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused
3. In CA No 367 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEAS – GENERAL PLEAS – PLEAS OF GUILTY – OTHER CASES – where applicants pleaded guilty to an offence under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and other offences under the Land Act 1994 – appeal against convictions pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 dismissed in the District Court – where the appeal to the District Court was incompetent pursuant to s 222(2)(e) Justices Act 1886 because the applicants pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court – whether there is a valid appeal or application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld)
Land Act 1994 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118; CA No 400 of 2003, 23 April 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf
J A Logan SC, with D Grealy, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicants, Edmund Paul Dore, Robert John Dore and Gary James Dore, pleaded guilty in the Tully Magistrates Court to an offence under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 in relation to the clearing of trees on their property and other offences under the Land Act 1994 in relation to the clearing on a road.

They were each fined with respect to the offences but convictions were not recorded. Each of the applicants purported to appeal against the convictions pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886. That matter came on before Judge Bradley in Cairns and as was pointed out in her reasons for judgment the applicants faced a difficulty in that section 222 (2)(e) in effect provided that no appeal should lie under that section where the defendant pleaded guilty except where the sole ground of appeal was that the punishment was excessive.

This Court has on numerous occasions indicated that section 222 of the Justices Act cannot provide an avenue of appeal against conviction. The most recent authority in this Court is Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118.…

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 Dore v Penny

Details

AGLC: Dore v Penny [2005] QCA 150
Case: [2005] QCA 150
Decision Date: 11 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Dore and Penny, were convicted of various offences under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Land Act 1994, and they appealed against their convictions in the District Court. They sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was refused. The primary issue before the court was whether there was a valid appeal or application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, given that the applicants had previously pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. The court had to determine if the appeal to the District Court was competent under section 222(2)(e) of the Justices Act 1886, considering the applicants' guilty pleas.

The court held that the appeal to the District Court was incompetent because the applicants had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court, thus limiting their ability to appeal. The applicants argued that they were unaware of the consequences of pleading guilty when they entered their pleas, but the court found this argument unpersuasive. The court reasoned that the applicants were represented by legal counsel and had ample opportunity to understand the implications of their pleas. Therefore, the applicants' argument that they were unaware of the consequences did not affect the validity of their guilty pleas. The court also noted that the applicants had not provided any grounds for leave to appeal, which would have been necessary to justify an appeal despite their guilty pleas.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications for leave to appeal in all three cases. The court confirmed that the appeals were incompetent due to the applicants' prior guilty pleas and that no valid grounds for leave to appeal had been presented. The refusal of leave to appeal meant that the convictions in the District Court remained unchanged. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's decision, and the applicants' appeals were unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 368 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused

2. In CA No 366 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused

3. In CA No 367 of 2004: 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:	Dore & Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150
PARTIES:	EDMUND PAUL DORE (appellant/applicant) ROBERT JOHN DORE (appellant/applicant) GARY JAMES DORE (appellant/applicant) v STEPHEN FRACIS PENNY (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 368 of 2004 CA No 366 of 2004 CA No 367 of 2004 DC No 200 of 2004 DC No 201 of 2004 DC No 202 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	11 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 May 2005
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Wilson J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	1. In CA No 368 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused 2. In CA No 366 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused 3. In CA No 367 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEAS – GENERAL PLEAS – PLEAS OF GUILTY – OTHER CASES – where applicants pleaded guilty to an offence under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and other offences under the Land Act 1994 – appeal against convictions pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 dismissed in the District Court – where the appeal to the District Court was incompetent pursuant to s 222(2)(e) Justices Act 1886 because the applicants pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court – whether there is a valid appeal or application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) Land Act 1994 (Qld) Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222 Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118; CA No 400 of 2003, 23 April 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicants appeared on their own behalf J A Logan SC, with D Grealy, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicants appeared on their own behalf C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the respondent