Grunwald v Bone

[2010] QDC 365

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE DEVEREAUX SC

MARK GEORGE GRUNWALD	Applicant
and
MERVYN KENNETH BONE	Respondent

BRISBANE and ordered to pay costs of $71.15.

..DATE 27/09/2010
ORDER
HIS HONOUR: Mr Grunwald, the applicant, was convicted on
5 November 2008 in the Richlands Magistrates Court of
disobeying the speed limit on 25 April 2008 pursuant to
section 20 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management -

Several grounds of appeal have until now been argued. The respondent today concedes that in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in Dixon v LeKich [2010] QCA 213, the appeal should be allowed because there was not evidence of the delegation of the Commissioner of Police to the officer who issued the relevant certificate. There being that gap in the evidence, the prosecution case must fail, and that is the concession made, and in the circumstances the appeal is to be allowed.

The orders will be:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The conviction entered in the Magistrates Court at Richlands on 8 December 2008 is set aside.

3. There is no order as to costs of the appeal.

-----

2 ORDER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mark George Grunwald, appealed a conviction for disobeying the speed limit, which was determined by the Richlands Magistrates Court on 5 November 2008. The conviction was based on an offence that occurred on 25 April 2008, as per section 20 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Act 2009. Grunwald's appeal was heard in the District Court Appellate Jurisdiction, presided over by Judge Devereaux SC. The respondent, Mervyn Kenneth Bone, conceded that the conviction should be overturned following the Court of Appeal's decision in Dixon v LeKich [2010] QCA 213.

The legal issue central to this case was whether the evidence provided by the officer who issued the relevant certificate was sufficient to demonstrate the necessary delegation from the Commissioner of Police. This requirement is crucial under the law to validate the officer's authority to issue such certificates. The respondent conceded that there was a gap in the evidence, specifically the lack of proof that the officer had the requisite delegation, which is necessary to uphold the prosecution's case. Given this concession, the court had to determine whether the absence of this evidence warranted setting aside the conviction.

Judge Devereaux SC ruled that due to the missing evidence of delegation, the prosecution's case was insufficient. Consequently, the conviction entered by the Richlands Magistrates Court on 8 December 2008 was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to the costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of proper evidentiary foundations in traffic offence convictions, ensuring that officers are duly authorised to issue such certificates.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established