Hayes v Surfers Paradise Rock and Roll Cafe Pty Ltd & anor

In the matter of Hayes v Surfers Paradise Rock and Roll Cafe Pty Ltd & anor, the respondents, Surfers Paradise Rock and Roll Café Pty Ltd and Mick Pikos, were appealing against their convictions for the offence of “touting” under s29(d) of the Liquor Regulation 2002. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Hayes, was seeking to have the appeal dismissed and the convictions upheld. The respondents were seeking to have the convictions set aside, arguing that the magistrate's reliance on an online dictionary source without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions was a miscarriage of justice.

The court was required to determine whether the definition of "touting" under s29(d) of the Liquor Regulation 2002 required evidence of a person actively engaging to exert pressure upon a potential customer, and whether the reference to an online dictionary source by the magistrate without affording parties an opportunity to make submissions amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate miscarried in their discretion in fixing costs after the summary trial in the sum of $3,625.

The court found that the definition of "touting" under s29(d) of the Liquor Regulation 2002 required evidence of a person actively engaging to exert pressure upon a potential customer. The court held that the magistrate's reliance on an online dictionary source without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions was a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the case had special difficulty, complexity, or importance, and that the magistrate miscarried in their discretion in fixing costs after the summary trial. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions of the respondents, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court before a different magistrate. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs in such amounts and within such time as were determined by the court.