JKL v DBA

Case [2020] QDC 159


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JKL v DBA [2020] QDC 159

PARTIES:

JKL
(Appellant)

v

DBA
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

21/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

16 July 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2020

JUDGE:

Byrne QC DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – where the appellant appeals against the making of a Protection Order made under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where the Order is enforced for five years – where the Order contains a total of six conditions directed at the appellant’s dealings with the respondent and their five children – whether there was a lack of procedural fairness – whether a relevant relationship was established on the evidence – whether the learned Magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to a police report filed in the proceedings – whether the learned Magistrate failed to properly consider that the terms of the Order were impractical – whether the learned Magistrate failed to consider the impact of orders made in the Family Court - whether the learned Magistrate failed to consider the ability of the appellant to commit domestic violence

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, s 4, s 9, s 11, s13, s 14, s 15, s 18, s 23(2), s 37, s 42, s 53, s 56, s 57, s 145, s 164(a), s 168, s 169
ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103
AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
DL v The Queen (2018) 356 ALR 197; [2018] HCA 26
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248
House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612
MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151
Nudd v The Queen (2006) 225 ALR 161
R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679
Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171

COUNSEL:

Appellant in person.
Ms. M Cullen for the Respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Appellant in person.

KLM Solicitors for the Respondent.

  1. The appellant appeals against the making of a Protection Order under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (DFVP Act) in the Gympie Magistrates Court on 20 November 2019.

  1. The order was made for a period of five years and contained a total of six conditions, directed towards the appellant’s dealings with the respondent and each of their five children, as named persons. It was in the following terms:

(1)That the respondent be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.

(2)That the respondent be of good behaviour towards the named person and not commit…

Continue reading JKL v DBA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
JKL v Dba [2020] QDC 159
Case
[2020] QDC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of JKL v DBA, the appellant, JKL, sought to appeal a Protection Order issued by a Magistrate under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). The Order, enforced for five years, imposed six conditions on JKL concerning their interactions with the respondent, DBA, and their five children. The appellant contested the making of the Order on multiple grounds, including an alleged lack of procedural fairness, the establishment of a relevant relationship based on the evidence, and the Magistrate's handling of certain reports and considerations.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Magistrate erred in several respects: whether there was a lack of procedural fairness in the proceedings; whether the evidence sufficiently established the relevant relationship required for the Order; whether the Magistrate failed to give appropriate weight to a police report; whether the terms of the Order were impractical; whether the Magistrate did not properly consider the impact of prior Family Court orders; and whether the Magistrate overlooked the appellant's ability to commit domestic violence.

The court examined these issues and found that the Magistrate's decision was sound. The court held that the procedural fairness was maintained, the relevant relationship was adequately established, and the Magistrate correctly assessed the weight of the police report. Furthermore, the court determined that the Order's terms were practical, the impact of the Family Court orders was appropriately considered, and the appellant's potential to commit domestic violence was adequately evaluated. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.