Guy v McLoughlin & Anor

Case [2006] QDC 17

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Guy v McLoughlin and Anor [2006] QDC 017

PARTIES:

CAMERON WILLIAM GUY

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL JAMES McLOUGHLIN

Respondent

CAMERON WILLIAM GUY

Appellant

AND

KATHRYN ELISE McLAINE

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD2428/05 and BD2638/05; MAG16610/04, 50187/05, 64333/05

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeals

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Maroochydore; Magistrates Court, Charleville

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2006

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed in part.  Set aside the condition of the bond requiring the appellant to stay out of Queensland during the operational period of the bond.  Declare that that condition is not and has never been validly part of the bond executed by the appellant.  Appeals otherwise dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Criminal Law – failure to appear to answer bail – summary conviction without hearing – no application to reopen – factual maters not raised below not available on appeal.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Criminal Law – plea of guilty – no jurisdiction of District Court on appeal to go behind plea.

INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrates Court – summary conviction following failure to appear – appeal not available on grounds not taken at first instance.

Justices Act 1886 s142A; s222(2)(c)

Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118 – followed.
Phillips v Spencer [2005] QCA 317 – followed.
Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 – applied.
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 – applied.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

M. Hungerford-Symes for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondents

  1. These are two appeals under section 222 from decisions of the Magistrates Court in Maroochydore and Charleville which were heard together. In each the notice of appeal was filed out of time, but time was extended by another judge on 26 July 2005.

Maroochydore matter

  1. The two charges dealt with in the Maroochydore court were that on 13 January 2005 at Maroochydore the appellant committed a public nuisance offence, and that on that day at that place the appellant obstructed a police officer in the performance of the officer’s duties. The appellant was arrested in relation to those offences on that day, but released on bail, presumably watch house bail, on that day, on an undertaking to appear in court on 27 January 2005. On that day according to the endorsement on the file the defendant did not appear but was represented and the matter was adjourned to 17 February 2005 and bail was enlarged. Both matters were then mentioned again on 17 February 2005 and on this occasion the appellant was present. Again both matters were adjourned for mention to 17 March 2005 and bail was enlarged. On 17 March 2005 the appellant was not present, and the magistrate proceeded under section 142A. The magistrate found that all the provisions of that section were complied with, the appellant was convicted of both offences and one penalty was imposed for both offences, a fine of $600, in…

Continue reading Guy v McLoughlin & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Guy v McLoughlin [2006] QDC 17
Case
[2006] QDC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guy v McLoughlin & Anor involves an appeal against a decision made by the Magistrates Court, where the appellant, Guy, had his bail bond revoked due to a failure to appear. The appellant sought to appeal the summary conviction and the District Court's refusal to grant a new trial. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's failure to appear in court constituted a valid reason for revoking his bail, and if the District Court had the authority to review the plea of guilty. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the appellant's appeal was valid despite not raising certain factual matters during the initial hearing.

The court found that the appellant's failure to appear in court was a legitimate ground for revoking his bail, but the condition of the bond requiring the appellant to stay out of Queensland during the bond's operational period was not validly part of the bond executed by the appellant. The court also held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review the plea of guilty, and the appeal was invalid as it did not raise the factual matters that were not taken at the first instance. The court determined that the appeal was only valid in relation to the condition of the bond, and the appeals in other aspects were dismissed.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the condition of the bond requiring the appellant to stay out of Queensland during the operational period of the bond. The court declared that this condition was not and had never been validly part of the bond executed by the appellant. The appeals were dismissed in all other respects. This decision highlights the importance of raising all relevant factual matters at the first instance, as well as the limited jurisdiction of the District Court to review pleas of guilty in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed in part. Set aside the condition of the bond requiring the appellant to stay out of Queensland during the operational period of the bond. Declare that that condition is not and has never been validly part of the bond executed by the appellant. Appeals otherwise dismissed

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.