Hubner v Erbacher - [2004] QDC 345

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345
PARTIES: JAMES MANUEL HUBNER
(Appellant)
v
DANIEL ERBACHER
(Respondent)
JAMES MANUEL HUBNER
(Appellant)
v
PAUL MORLEY
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal 262 of 2003 Appeal 263 of 2003
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Magistrates Court of Atherton
DELIVERED ON:
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE: White DCJ
ORDER:
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL: Appellant in person
Mr S Carter for the respondents
SOLICITORS: Appellant in person
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondents

On 25 June 2003 the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates court at Atherton of the following offences:-

1.

That on the 28th day October 2002 at Yungaburra in the Magistrates Court District of Cairns in the State of Queensland he used on a road namely Gordonvale-Atherton Road, Yungaburra, a vehicle namely a motor car which was not a registered vehicle contrary to s 10 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation

2.

That on the 27th day of October 2002 in the Magistrates Court District of Cairns in the State of Queensland he without reasonable excuse had in his possession a thing that purported to be but was not a number plate.
The appellant appeals to the District Court against his conviction for these offences.

The trial took place on 25 June 2003 in the Magistrates Court at Atherton before His Worship Mr T Allingham, Magistrate. At the commencement of the hearing a person by the name of Malcolm McClure purported to appear for the appellant. After hearing extensive submissions on the point the learned Magistrate refused to permit Mr McClure to appear for the appellant. This is one matter raised as a ground of appeal against the conviction. I will return to consider it later. Ultimately His Worship proceeded on the basis that the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecutor called evidence from two police officers, Sgt Daniel John Erbacher and Sen Const Paul John Morley. Evidence was also given by Maureen Bridget Forsayth, an officer of the Queensland Transport Department.
Sgt Erbacher and Sen const Morley gave evidence that they were performing road patrols on the Gillies Highway between Yungaburra and Atherton. The evidence was that the road was also known as the Gordonvale-Atherton Road. At about 2.10 in the afternoon the officers intercepted a Ford F250 utility which was being driven by the appellant. The officers noticed, attached to the vehicle, what appeared to be a number plate bearing the numbers 351-F250. It had the letters AUS printed down the side of the number plate and the words “HM ELECTORS PARLIAMENT QUEENSLAND” printed underneath the number. Const Morley asked the appellant to produce his driver’s licence which he did and which confirmed the appellant’s identity. Const Morley asked the appellant where he had obtained the number plate and he responded that he had bought them from a friend in Victoria for $400.00. Morley also noticed that there was not a Queensland Transport registration sticker attached to the vehicle and…

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 Hubner v Erbacher

Details

AGLC: Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345
Case: [2004] QDC 345
Decision Date: 24/08/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of Queensland, James Manuel Hubner appealed against his conviction for two offences related to vehicle registration. The respondent in the appeal was Daniel Erbacher, one of the police officers involved in the incident. The appeal was heard by White DCJ. The appellant argued that the regulations governing vehicle registration were invalid and that various legal rights, including rights under the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution, prevailed over the law. The court found that the appellant's arguments were without merit. The court held that the relevant regulations were valid and that they abrogated any common law or other rights that were inconsistent with them. The court also held that the appellant's reliance on the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution was misplaced, as those documents did not prevail over the laws of the Queensland Parliament.

The court dismissed the appeals and ordered that the costs of the appeals be paid by the appellant. The court held that the appellant's arguments were unrealistic and unmaintainable, and that the trial was conducted fairly. The court also held that the appellant had no right to have a non-lawyer represent him in the trial, and that the failure to permit such representation did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeals and that they should be dismissed.

Orders