Johnson v Queensland Police Service - [2014] QCA 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johnson v Queensland Police Service [2014] QCA 195

PARTIES:

JOHNSON, William Alistair
(applicant/appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2014
DC No 85 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Morrison JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Leave to appeal be granted.

2.    The appeal be allowed.

3.    The order made in the District Court on 7 March 2014 be set aside.

4.    The applicant’s conviction be quashed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of the offence of failing to give way to a vehicle travelling in a lane or line of traffic – where the applicant was unsuccessful on his appeal against his conviction to the District Court – where the applicant applied under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) for leave to appeal – whether the magistrate erred in concluding that it could not be safe for a driver to proceed if a vehicle was obliged to brake to avoid a collision – whether the judge adequately discharged his duty under s 223 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – whether the magistrate’s decision and the judge’s decision were affected by significant errors of law, resulting in a substantial injustice to the applicant

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 223
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 87(1), Sch 5

Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji[2013] QCA 319, considered
Mbuzi v Torcetti (2008) 50 MVR 451; [2008] QCA 231, followed
Pickering v McArthur[2005] QCA 294, considered
Rodgers v Smith[2006] QCA 353, considered
Shambayati v Commissioner of Police[2013] QCA 57, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: Introduction The applicant was convicted on 28 June 2013 in the Magistrates Court of the offence under s 87(1) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) (the Regulation) of failing to give way to a vehicle travelling in a lane or line of traffic. He was unsuccessful on his appeal against his conviction to the District Court. He now applies under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) (the DCA) for leave to appeal.

The applicant relied on 11 grounds of appeal. Some of the grounds would not, even if made out, warrant the granting of leave. A number of others allege in different…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnson v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCA 195
Decision Date: 15 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnson applied for leave to appeal against his conviction for failing to give way to a vehicle travelling in a lane or line of traffic. The application was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the applicant argued that the magistrate had erred in concluding that it could not be safe for a driver to proceed if a vehicle was obliged to brake to avoid a collision. Johnson also argued that the judge in the District Court had not adequately discharged his duty under s 223 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and that both the magistrate’s decision and the judge’s decision were affected by significant errors of law, resulting in a substantial injustice to the applicant.

The court considered the arguments and found that there were significant errors of law in the magistrate’s decision, which had not been corrected by the judge. The court held that the magistrate had not properly considered the evidence and had instead relied on a legal principle that did not apply to the circumstances of the case. The court also found that the judge had failed to adequately discharge his duty under s 223 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), as he had not reviewed the evidence and had instead relied on the magistrate’s decision.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order made in the District Court on 7 March 2014 and quashing Johnson’s conviction. The court found that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal. The court held that the errors of law had resulted in a decision that was unjust and that the applicant’s conviction should be quashed.

The orders of the court were that leave to appeal be granted, the appeal be allowed, the order made in the District Court on 7 March 2014 be set aside, and Johnson’s conviction be quashed. The court held that it was appropriate to set aside the conviction and to quash the order, as the errors of law had resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be granted.

2. The appeal be allowed.

3. The order made in the District Court on 7 March 2014 be set aside.

4. The applicant’s conviction be quashed.

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:	Johnson v Queensland Police Service [2014] QCA 195
PARTIES:	JOHNSON, William Alistair (applicant/appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 75 of 2014 DC No 85 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	15 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 August 2014
JUDGES:	Muir and Morrison JJA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal be granted. 2. The appeal be allowed. 3. The order made in the District Court on 7 March 2014 be set aside. 4. The applicant’s conviction be quashed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of the offence of failing to give way to a vehicle travelling in a lane or line of traffic – where the applicant was unsuccessful on his appeal against his conviction to the District Court – where the applicant applied under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) for leave to appeal – whether the magistrate erred in concluding that it could not be safe for a driver to proceed if a vehicle was obliged to brake to avoid a collision – whether the judge adequately discharged his duty under s 223 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – whether the magistrate’s decision and the judge’s decision were affected by significant errors of law, resulting in a substantial injustice to the applicant District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 223 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 87(1), Sch 5 Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji[2013] QCA 319, considered Mbuzi v Torcetti (2008) 50 MVR 451; [2008] QCA 231, followed Pickering v McArthur[2005] QCA 294, considered Rodgers v Smith[2006] QCA 353, considered Shambayati v Commissioner of Police[2013] QCA 57, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent