Dore v State of Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dore v State of Queensland & Anor [2004] QDC 364

PARTIES:

EDMUND P DORE,
(Appellant)
v
STEPHEN FRANCIS PENNY

(Respondent)

ROBERT J DORE,
(
Appellant)
v
STEPHEN FRANCIS PENNY

(Respondent)

GARY J DORE
(Appellant)
v
STEPHEN FRANCIS PENNY
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

200 of 2004
201 of 2004
202 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Tully

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2004

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

Mr D Grealy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellants appeared on own behalf
Crown Solicitor for the respondent

Background

  1. In May 2002, three brothers, Edmund, Robert and Gary Dore, purchased 192.69 hectares of land at Murrigal, Murray Upper via Euramo for over $400,000. The brothers hold the property as tenants in common in equal one third shares. The gazetted but unused Bellenden Road diagonally crosses the top half of the property.

  1. On 1 July 2002 two anonymous complaints were received by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (“DNRM”) alleging the clearing of vegetation on the property. On 3 July 2002 an inspection was undertaken and a large area of vegetation was found to have been cleared on the property and over Bellenden Road.  The brothers admitted to officers of the DNRM that they had cleared the vegetation some one to one and half weeks prior to the inspection. No development approvals for clearing on the brothers’ property and no tree clearing permits for clearing on the road had been issued.  

  1. About 27 hectares of remnant endangered regional ecosystem and about 3 hectares of remnant of concern regional ecosystem were cleared by the brothers on their own property and about .7 of a hectare of remnant endangered regional ecosystem was cleared on Bellenden Road. Endangered status means that there is less than 10% of pre-European extent remaining across a bioregion (in this case the Wet Tropics Bioregion) or its distribution has contracted to less than 10% of its former range. Of concern status means that between 10% and 30% pre-European extent remains in an intact condition in the bioregion.

  1. Each of the brothers pleaded guilty in the Tully Magistrates Court to an offence under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 in relation to the clearing on their property, and another offence under the Land Act 1994 in relation to the clearing on Bellenden Road. On 2 April 2004 each of the brothers was fined $15,000 with respect to the first offence and $3,000 with respect to the second. In default of payment the Magistrate ordered “Levy in distress”. Convictions were not recorded against them.

  1. The brothers were represented by counsel in the Magistrates Court but were not legally represented in their appeal to this court although Mr David J. Walter of EnviroWild Pty Ltd, Herberton prepared their Notices of Appeal and a lengthy written submission running to well over 100 pages in support of the appeals.

  1. Unfortunately the Notices of Appeal, not having…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dore v State of Queensland and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] QDC 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dore v State of Queensland involved the appellant, Dore, who contested his conviction and sentence for various criminal charges. The State of Queensland sought to uphold the lower court's decision. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the appeal. The appellant challenged both the correctness and the legality of the primary court's findings, arguing that there were procedural errors and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to these errors. The appellant's counsel contended that the admission of specific evidence was improper and prejudicial, and that this led to an unjust outcome. The court had to determine if the trial judge's decisions were legally sound and whether they complied with the principles of fairness and procedural correctness.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the contested evidence. The court held that the evidence was properly obtained and was relevant to the charges. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in reaching the verdict. Consequently, the appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed. The reasoning provided by the court underscored the importance of ensuring that trial procedures are followed correctly and that evidence is properly admitted, but in this instance, the court found no grounds to overturn the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals against conviction and sentence 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

GARY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GARY J

Full text does not contain this section.