Gauld v Queensland Police Service - [2025] QMC 6

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gauld v Queensland Police Service [2025] QMC 6

PARTIES:

ANGELA GAY GAULD

(Applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00118322/24(0)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Gympie

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate Hughes

ORDER:

THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPLICANT’S COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1840.00 WITHIN 30 DAYS.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWER TO AWARD – whether it is proper for costs order – where investigation not conducted in appropriate way - where investigative deficiencies - where applicant told to get in police car without being charged or under arrest - where arresting officer did not comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis – where applicant as a woman is identified by law as particularly vulnerable to domestic violence - where police did not properly consider indicia of domestic violence – where applicant charged with fail to supply specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement – where applicant also charged with drive under the influence of liquor or a drug – where applicant restrained and detained - where defence notified prosecution of investigative deficiencies at early stage - where police offered no evidence to first charge but continued with second charge – where police later offered no evidence to second charge - where both charges dismissed – where applicant prejudiced due to prolonged period of licence suspension while investigated and prosecuted – where applicant funded by legal aid

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 25

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 4

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158, s 158A, s 158B

Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), Schedule 2, Part 2

Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 30, s 31, s 32

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 79, s 80

Allison v Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 111

Bell v Carter; Ex parte Bell [1992] QCA 245

Davies v Dorfler [1988] 2 QdR 490

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

Lewis v Utting, ex parte Utting (1985) 1 QdR 423

MacPherson v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] QCA 396

Madden v Commissioner of Police [2023] QCA 31

Madden v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2023] QCA 182

Maher v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 45

Power v Lewis [2007] QDC 188

SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57

Wells v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 120

SOLICITORS:

Nightingale Law for the Applicant

Sergeant M Campbell for the Respondent

What is this Application about?

Angela Gauld has applied for her costs of having to defend charges[1] that were dismissed[2] after police offered no evidence. Ms Gauld’s driver licence was suspended for some six months while she awaited the outcome.

[1]Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80(11) – Fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement (Charge 1);

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gauld v Queensland Police Service 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: [2025] QMC 6
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gauld v Queensland Police Service, the applicant sought costs following the dismissal of charges against her. The applicant was arrested and detained by police officers, who required her to provide a breath specimen for analysis. The applicant, a woman, had been identified by law as particularly vulnerable to domestic violence, a fact which the police did not properly consider. The police did not comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis, and the applicant was told to get in a police car without being charged or under arrest. The applicant was charged with failing to supply a specimen of breath for analysis or a blood test on requirement and with driving under the influence of liquor or a drug. The applicant was restrained and detained. The defence notified the prosecution of investigative deficiencies at an early stage, and the police offered no evidence to the first charge but continued with the second charge. The police later offered no evidence to the second charge, and both charges were dismissed. The applicant was prejudiced due to the prolonged period of licence suspension while investigated and prosecuted, and she was funded by legal aid.

The court was required to determine whether it was proper to award costs in these circumstances, particularly given the investigative deficiencies and the prolonged period of licence suspension. The court considered the extent to which the applicant was prejudiced by the police's failure to comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis, and whether the police properly considered the indicia of domestic violence. The court also considered the impact of the prolonged period of licence suspension on the applicant, and whether the police's conduct warranted an award of costs.

The court found that it was proper to award costs in this case. The court found that the police's failure to comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis, and their failure to properly consider the indicia of domestic violence, resulted in a significant prejudice to the applicant. The court found that the prolonged period of licence suspension also resulted in a significant prejudice to the applicant. The court found that the police's conduct warranted an award of costs, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding in the amount of $1840.00 within 30 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPLICANT’S COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1840.00 WITHIN 30 DAYS.

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:	Gauld v Queensland Police Service [2025] QMC 6
PARTIES:	ANGELA GAY GAULD (Applicant) V QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00118322/24(0)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Gympie
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Gympie
HEARING DATE:	On the Papers
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate Hughes
ORDER:	THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPLICANT’S COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1840.00 WITHIN 30 DAYS.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWER TO AWARD – whether it is proper for costs order – where investigation not conducted in appropriate way - where investigative deficiencies - where applicant told to get in police car without being charged or under arrest - where arresting officer did not comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis – where applicant as a woman is identified by law as particularly vulnerable to domestic violence - where police did not properly consider indicia of domestic violence – where applicant charged with fail to supply specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement – where applicant also charged with drive under the influence of liquor or a drug – where applicant restrained and detained - where defence notified prosecution of investigative deficiencies at early stage - where police offered no evidence to first charge but continued with second charge – where police later offered no evidence to second charge - where both charges dismissed – where applicant prejudiced due to prolonged period of licence suspension while investigated and prosecuted – where applicant funded by legal aid Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 25 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 4 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158, s 158A, s 158B Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), Schedule 2, Part 2 Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 30, s 31, s 32 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 79, s 80 Allison v Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 111 Bell v Carter; Ex parte Bell [1992] QCA 245 Davies v Dorfler [1988] 2 QdR 490 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Lewis v Utting, ex parte Utting (1985) 1 QdR 423 MacPherson v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] QCA 396 Madden v Commissioner of Police [2023] QCA 31 Madden v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2023] QCA 182 Maher v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 45 Power v Lewis [2007] QDC 188 SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57 Wells v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 120
SOLICITORS:	Nightingale Law for the Applicant Sergeant M Campbell for the Respondent