Hughes v Talty - [2015] QDC 145

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hughes v Talty & Anor [2015] QDC 145

PARTIES:

JOHN HUGHES
(appellant)

v

PATRICIA ANN TALTY
(first respondent)
WILLIAM CHARLES JENKINS

(second respondent)

FILE NO:

25/15

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Wynnum

DELIVERED ON:

5 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2015

JUDGE:

Devereaux SC DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is allowed. The orders of the learned Magistrate are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

Justices Act 1886, s 157, 158B, 161, 222, 223

Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982, s 4, 6, 8

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – where respondents applied for orders under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 subs 4(2) – where magistrate made order – whether grounds of complaint and evidence led at hearing supported the ‘matters of complaint’

COSTS – where magistrate ordered appellant to pay respondent (complainant) costs in the sum of $1,000 with a default period of imprisonment – whether costs order made with regard to scale

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

S DiCarlo for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Piccardi Legal for the respondent

This is an appeal from the order of a magistrate that the appellant keep the peace and be of good behaviour towards the respondents for a period of 12 months. The appeal is brought under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886. The learned Magistrate’s order was made pursuant to s 6 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982. Section 8 of that Act provides, in effect, that the proceedings and procedures under the Justices Act applicable in the case of prosecution of an offence in a summary way apply to proceedings by way of complaint under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act. There being no specific provision for appeal in the Peace and Good Behaviour Act, it would seem that the appeal lies pursuant to Pt 9 of the Justices Act.

By s 223, the appeal is by way of rehearing on the evidence given in the proceeding before the learned Magistrate. The appellant sought to adduce further evidence by way of affidavit. Mr Di Carlo who appeared for the respondents, while not conceding the evidence should be admitted, was content for me to receive it subject to certain reservations. It has been unnecessary to consider that material to dispose of the appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Di Carlo handed up an outline of argument addressing some of the matters raised in the appellant’s outline. The appellant objected to the outline, it not being part of the appeal documents prepared and filed before the parties signed the certificate of readiness. I decided to regard the outline to the extent that it might assist my understanding of the appellant’s outline.

Section 4(1) of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act provides that:

“a person may make a complaint to a Justice of the Peace that another person has threatened

(a)…

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 Hughes v Talty

Details

AGLC: Hughes v Talty [2015] QDC 145
Case: [2015] QDC 145
Decision Date: 5 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hughes v Talty, the respondents sought orders under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 section 4(2) against the appellant, who was a member of their household. The respondents alleged that the appellant's conduct amounted to a disturbance of the peace. Following a hearing, a magistrate made an order against the appellant based on the respondents' complaints and the evidence presented. The appellant appealed this decision, challenging the magistrate's finding that the grounds of complaint and evidence supported the 'matters of complaint' as well as the imposition of costs.

The central legal issue was whether the magistrate's decision was supported by the grounds of complaint and evidence. The court had to consider whether the appellant's conduct amounted to a disturbance of the peace under the Act. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the magistrate had correctly exercised their discretion in ordering the appellant to pay costs to the respondents, and if the costs were reasonable and proportionate to the proceedings.

The court found that the magistrate had not adequately considered the evidence and the nature of the complaints. The findings did not sufficiently support the conclusion that the appellant's conduct constituted a disturbance of the peace. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the magistrate were set aside. The court also noted that the costs order was not made with regard to the scale set out in the Justices Act 1886 and was therefore excessive. The complaint was dismissed, and the orders of the magistrate were quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed. The orders of the learned Magistrate are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

Justices Act 1886, s 157, 158B, 161, 222, 223

Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982, s 4, 6, 8

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:	Hughes v Talty & Anor [2015] QDC 145
PARTIES:	JOHN HUGHES (appellant) v PATRICIA ANN TALTY (first respondent) WILLIAM CHARLES JENKINS (second respondent)
FILE NO:	25/15
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Wynnum
DELIVERED ON:	5 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2015
JUDGE:	Devereaux SC DCJ
ORDER:	The appeal is allowed. The orders of the learned Magistrate are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Justices Act 1886, s 157, 158B, 161, 222, 223 Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982, s 4, 6, 8
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – where respondents applied for orders under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 subs 4(2) – where magistrate made order – whether grounds of complaint and evidence led at hearing supported the ‘matters of complaint’ COSTS – where magistrate ordered appellant to pay respondent (complainant) costs in the sum of $1,000 with a default period of imprisonment – whether costs order made with regard to scale
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf S DiCarlo for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Piccardi Legal for the respondent