Harris v Griffin - [2017] QDC 164

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harris v Griffin [2017] QDC 164

PARTIES:

MITCHELL CHARLES HARRIS

(APPELLANT)

v

BARRY JOSEPH GRIFFIN

(RESPONDENT)

FILE NO/S:

4949 of 2016

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Caboolture

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2017

JUDGE:

Dick SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The conviction is quashed.

3.   A verdict of acquittal is entered.

4.   The respondent is to pay costs of appellant agreed between the parties or fixed in accordance with schedule 2 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant was convicted for driving without due care and attention – whether the Learned Magistrate gave sufficient weight to evidence of witnesses – whether the Learned Magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for decision

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)

Bawden v ACI Operations Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 293

Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430

Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39

Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462

Johannsen v Zeller Ex-Parte Zeller [1958] Qd R 366

Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd (2007) 18 VR 346

R v PAH [2008] QCA 265

Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247

Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill [1998] QCA 112

Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327

COUNSEL:

A Edwards for the applicant

J Dudley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McGinness & Associates for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

This is an appeal under the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) against a conviction for driving without due care and attention pursuant to s 83 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) (“TORUM”). The appellant was convicted and fined $750. No action was taken with respect to his driver’s license.

The appeal grounds are as follows:

1.The learned magistrate failed to have sufficient regard to the witnesses Ms M S Spicer and Mr Creighton.
2.The learned magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for not accepting the evidence of Mr Creighton, whose evidence contradicted that of all other witnesses.
3.The verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. Leave is sought to add Ground 3 in the appeal and the granting of leave is not challenged.

Background

The incident giving rise to the charge involved a two-vehicle collision. The collision occurred on 2 July 2015 at about 7.45 am on Bribie Island Road which has one lane in each direction separated by a broken white line. The speed limit was 100 kilometres per hour. The appellant was travelling west in a Mazda utility and the second vehicle, a Pajero station wagon driven by Dane Manton, was…

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.

Continue reading Harris v Griffin

Details

AGLC: Harris v Griffin [2017] QDC 164
Case: [2017] QDC 164
Decision Date: 26 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, Harris v Griffin, was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The appellant, Harris, was convicted by a magistrate for driving without due care and attention, a charge under the Road Traffic Act. The respondent, Griffin, was the prosecutor in the original proceedings. The appellant sought to appeal the conviction on the grounds that the magistrate’s decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence presented. The appeal raised two main legal issues: whether the magistrate appropriately weighed the evidence of the witnesses and whether the magistrate provided adequate reasoning for the decision.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the magistrate adequately assessed the witness testimonies and provided sufficient reasoning for the conviction. The court noted that the magistrate’s reasons were brief and did not adequately explain how the evidence led to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. The court held that the magistrate failed to provide a detailed analysis of the evidence and the weight given to each piece of testimony. The Court also found that the magistrate did not sufficiently consider the appellant's evidence, which was crucial in determining the reasonableness of the conviction.

Given these findings, the Court of Appeal concluded that the conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appeal was allowed under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The conviction was quashed, and a verdict of acquittal was entered in favour of the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs, as agreed between the parties or fixed in accordance with the schedule of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The conviction is quashed.

3. A verdict of acquittal is entered.

4. The respondent is to pay costs of appellant agreed between the parties or fixed in accordance with schedule 2 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

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:	Harris v Griffin [2017] QDC 164
PARTIES:	MITCHELL CHARLES HARRIS (APPELLANT) v BARRY JOSEPH GRIFFIN (RESPONDENT)
FILE NO/S:	4949 of 2016
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Caboolture
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	District Court at Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2017
JUDGE:	Dick SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The conviction is quashed. 3. A verdict of acquittal is entered. 4. *The respondent is to pay costs of appellant agreed between the parties or fixed in accordance with schedule 2 of the Justices Act 1886* (Qld).**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant was convicted for driving without due care and attention – whether the Learned Magistrate gave sufficient weight to evidence of witnesses – whether the Learned Magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for decision Justices Act 1886 (Qld) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) Bawden v ACI Operations Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 293 Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39 Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 Johannsen v Zeller Ex-Parte Zeller [1958] Qd R 366 Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd (2007) 18 VR 346 R v PAH [2008] QCA 265 Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill [1998] QCA 112 Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327
COUNSEL:	A Edwards for the applicant J Dudley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McGinness & Associates for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent