Khoury v Williams

[2010] QDC 16

[2010] QDC 16

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE NOUD
Appeal No 2727 of 2009

MANUEL KHOURY	Appellant
and
STEPHEN WAYNE WILLIAMS	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 01/02/2010 ORDER

1-1

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against sentence. Ms Maleckas

1

appears for the respondent. The appellant appears in person.
The material relied on is the Notice of Appeal and the
material that was before the Magistrates Court. I did not ask
for that to be identified at the beginning but that is clear

enough and I have had regard to that material along with the	10
submissions that are on the Court file.
The respondent's submissions are dated 4 November 2009. They
are in fact the submissions of Ms Litchen but it is obvious
that Ms Maleckas relies on those submissions. I will make	20
them Exhibit 2.
ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 2"
HIS HONOUR: And Mr Khoury's material will be Exhibit 2.	30
ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 2"
HIS HONOUR: That is on the Court file. He was speaking about
further material a moment ago when I was discussing the matter	40
with him but I do not think it necessary to go into any further material.
The position is here that the appellant was charged with
speeding. It was alleged that he was speeding on 8 January	50
2009. He was dealt with in the Magistrates Court on 18
September 2009. I agree with the submissions that are made in
Exhibit 1.

1-2 ORDER 60

When the appellant's responsibility for the offending was
discussed between himself and the Magistrate it was very clear
that the appellant was relying on extraordinary emergency. I
do not wish to go into too much detail because the appeal is

conceded but the point is that the appellant's wife, he	10
alleged, was ill and that she had called him on the telephone to attend on her.
There are further circumstances set out at page 2 of the
submissions Exhibit 1 and the exchange between the appellant	20
and the Magistrate appears at page 4 of the submissions. I am
satisfied that those submissions accurately reflect the
proceedings in the Magistrates Court. In the submissions
extraordinary emergency is then discussed as is the position
where a plea of guilty should not be accepted by the judicial	30
officer concerned.
The point in the present case however is that there was not a plea at all. I think the Magistrate should have informed the appellant that he was entitled to have the issue tried and	40
then proceed to hear the matter or to stand it down or adjourn it so that it could be dealt with as a trial.
The Magistrate did not go about it in that way and in my
respectful opinion erred. The appeal should therefore be	50

allowed. These are the orders that I make. I briefly
discussed costs with the appellant and with Ms Maleckas.
The orders are as follows. I order that the appeal be 1-3 ORDER 60

1

allowed. Secondly, I order that the matter be remitted to the

Magistrates Court for a trial.

... 10

-----

20

30

40

50

1-4 ORDER 60