GS v QPS

Case [2020] QDC 205

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

EH v QPS; GS v QPS [2020] QDC 205

PARTIES:

In Appeal No. 36 of 2020:

EH

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

In Appeal No. 37 of 2020:

GS

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

36/20; 37/20

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222 Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Bowen

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

6 August 2020

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeals are allowed.

2.   The sentences imposed on each of the appellants by the Acting Magistrate on 12 February 2020 are set aside.

3.   The appellants are each resentenced as follows:

(a)   A single fine of $1000 is imposed for all the offences:

  i.       obstructing a railway, contrary to section 477 of the Criminal Code 1899;

  ii.      trespassing on a railway, contrary to section 257 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994;

  iii.       using a dangerous attachment device to interfere with transport infrastructure, contrary to section 14C(1) of the Summary Offences Act 2005; and

  iv.       contravening a direction or requirement, contrary to section 791(2) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000,

to be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register.

(b)  No convictions are recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellants were each charged with offences of obstructing a railway, trespassing on a railway, using a dangerous attachment device to interfere with transport infrastructure, and contravening a direction or requirement – where the appellants pleaded guilty to all charges and were sentenced to three months imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years for the use of a dangerous attachment device – where appellants appeal against the sentence of imprisonment pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive – where the Crown concedes that sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive – where the appellants are resentenced – where the dangerous attachment device offence is a new offence – relevance of motive on sentence

Legislation

Criminal Code Act 1899 s 477
Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 s 257
Summary Offences Act2005 s 14B, s 14C
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 s 791(2)
Justices Act 1886 s 222
Penalties and Sentences Act1992 s 9, s 12, s 48,
Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019
Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Cases
R v Muirhead; R v Muirhead; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] QCA 244
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
Avery & Ors v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 21
Nolin v Commissioner of Police [2019] QDC 171
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246
Commissioner of…

Continue reading GS v QPS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
EH v Queensland Police Service; GS v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 205
Case
[2020] QDC 205
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in GS v QPS involved two appellants who had been charged with obstructing a railway, trespassing on a railway, using a dangerous attachment device to interfere with transport infrastructure, and contravening a direction or requirement. Both appellants pleaded guilty to all charges and were sentenced to three months imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years, for using a dangerous attachment device. They appealed against their sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive. The Crown conceded that the sentences were indeed manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate under the relevant legislation, specifically section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The court also had to consider the relevance of the appellants' motive in sentencing, particularly as the dangerous attachment device offence was a new offence.

The court found the sentences were manifestly excessive. It noted the Crown's concession and examined the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court determined that a wholly suspended sentence was inappropriate, particularly given the appellants' actions endangered public safety and interfered with critical transport infrastructure. The court resentenced the appellants, imposing a single fine of $1000 for all offences, with no convictions recorded. This decision ensured the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and reflected the need for general and specific deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeals are allowed.

2. The sentences imposed on each of the appellants by the Acting Magistrate on 12 February 2020 are set aside.

3. The appellants are each resentenced as follows:

(a) A single fine of $1000 is imposed for all the offences:

i. obstructing a railway, contrary to section 477 of the Criminal Code 1899;

ii. trespassing on a railway, contrary to section 257 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994;

iii. using a dangerous attachment device to interfere with transport infrastructure, contrary to section 14C(1) of the Summary Offences Act 2005; and

iv. contravening a direction or requirement, contrary to section 791(2) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000,

to be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register.

(b) No convictions are recorded.

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.