Dubois v Rockhampton Regional Council

The case of Dubois v Rockhampton Regional Council involved the applicant, Dubois, appealing against his conviction for contempt of court and the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The applicant had been running a motor garage business on his land, which was subject to a lawful non-conforming use. In 1999, an order was made requiring Dubois to move a vehicle hoist and equipment within seven days. The primary judge found that Dubois had knowingly and without lawful excuse failed to comply with the 1999 order and was convicted of contempt of court, receiving a three-month suspended sentence. Dubois sought leave to appeal the conviction and sentence, arguing that the primary judge erred in various respects.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge was correct in holding that certain activities on the applicant's land were not permitted as a residential use, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the primary judge failed to take into account relevant considerations when sentencing, including the applicant's apology and period of compliance before the breach of the 1999 order. The court had to determine whether the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applied to contempt orders and if the sentence was indeed excessive.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in holding that certain activities on the land were not permitted as a residential use. The court also determined that the primary judge did not fail to adequately consider the applicant's apology or period of compliance before the breach. The court held that the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) did apply to contempt orders and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal was allowed, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. The court amended the order at first instance to provide that if the Planning and Environment Court was satisfied that any of the terms of the order of 11 June 1999 were breached by the respondent after 3 April 2014 and prior to the expiration of the three months term of the sentence, the court could order the respondent to serve the whole or part of the suspended imprisonment. The court also varied the date in paragraph 3 of the order.