FLC v MRT

[2021] QDC 264

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

FLC v MRT [2021] QDC 264

PARTIES:

FLC

(Appellant)

v

MRT

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

1380/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Cleveland

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2021

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Orders made by the Magistrates Court at Cleveland dated 26 May 2021 be set aside;

2.   The application be remitted to the Magistrates Court, to be reheard before a different Magistrate.

CATCHWORDS:

DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW – APPEAL – PROTECTION ORDER – where the learned Magistrate made a protection order in favour of the respondent – where the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for the decision to grant the application for a protection order – where the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate took into account extraneous matters including the  demeanour of the respondent’s support person – where the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate failed to properly consider or direct himself in line with the principle from Jones v Dunkel – whether the learned Magistrate erred in failing to make sufficient findings of fact and in failing to explain how he concluded that the requirements for making a protection order had been established    

LEGISLATION:

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s.15

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s.11

CASES:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219

GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

LKF v MRR [2012] QDC 355

R v Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308

Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181

COUNSEL:

J. Feeley for the Appellant

M. Jackson for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fuller & White Solicitors for the Appellant

Rawlings Criminal Law for the Respondent

Summary

1. On 26 May 2021, after a trial lasting one day, the learned Magistrate made a protection order in favour of the respondent requiring the appellant:

   (a)To be of good behaviour towards the respondent and not commit domestic violence against him;

   (b)Not to approach, enter or remain at the premises where the respondent lives or works;

   (c)Not to have any direct or indirect contact with the respondent, including through social media.

2. Although short, the trial contained issues requiring careful attention, particularly given the conflicting versions of the appellant and the respondent and the legal issues which arose as to whether domestic violence had occurred, if so what kind, and whether (depending on the findings as to the character of any acts of domestic violence established) an order was necessary. The learned Magistrate’s reasons covered some 35 lines of transcript (the reasons). The reasons failed sufficiently to address any of those matters.  Reference to the trial transcript to supplement the reasons did not assist. The reasons also disclosed fundamental errors.   

3. Failure to provide adequate reasons for judicial decisions undermines confidence in the judicial process. At the hearing of this appeal,…