King v Queensland Police Service

[2009] QDC 54

[2009] QDC 54

DISTRICT COURT

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE EVERSON

Appeal No 232 of 2008

KING	Appellant
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE	Respondent

CAIRNS

..DATE 13/03/2009

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to section 229 of the Justices Act 1886 to strike out the appeal. The appeal was filed on 7 October 2008 and has been mentioned in this Court on a number of occasions. It is a requirement in prosecuting appeals such as this, pursuant to Practice Direction 5 of 2001, that the appellant file an outline within 28 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Indeed, the appellant must not only file an outline of argument, but also serve it on the respondent. An outline of argument is defined in paragraph 2 of the practice direction in concise terms.

The appellant has consistently refused to file and serve an outline of argument on the basis that he contends that he is entitled to a transcript of the proceedings in the Court below free of charge.  He claims that he requires a transcript for the prosecution of the appeal and that it is "his democratic right" to obtain one free of charge.

Unfortunately for him, this is not what the law says. There is no right to a free transcript in these circumstances and I have repeatedly informed the appellant of this fact. The position is made clear by section 154 of the Justices Act which expressly states that an application for a copy of such a document must be in writing and must also be in circumstances where there has been payment of the amount of the prescribed fee. The lawfulness of section 154 of the Justices Act was confirmed in Birchley v. Couchy [2005] QDC 020. The appellant, despite being informed of his obligations in this regard, and of the fact that he is not entitled to a free transcript, has nonetheless doggedly‑‑‑‑‑

APPELLANT:  Sir - excuse me, sir‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR:  Don’t interrupt - has nonetheless doggedly maintained his position.  I'm left with no alternative but to strike the appeal out.  Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the appeal is struck out.

-----