Lea v Snajdara - [2016] QDC 353

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lea v Snajdara [2016] QDC 353

PARTIES:

CONSTABLE HAYDEN LEA
(appellant)

v

ANDRE JOHN SNAJDARA
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4740 of 2014

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Holland Park

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons 15 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.     The appeal is allowed.

2.     The order for dismissal of the charge is set aside.

3.     The matter is remitted to the Brisbane Magistrates Court for rehearing before a different magistrate.

4.     No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES- APPEAL – whether respondent should have been acquitted of failing to supply a specimen of breath for analysis

Justices Act 1886 (Q) ss 222, 225

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Q) s 80

Fischer v Douglas ex-parte Fischer [1978] Qd R 27

Murphy v Porter ex-parte Murphy [1985] 1 Qd R 59

Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489

Wilcox v Doolan (1990) 13 QLR 50

COUNSEL:

Mr J. Hanna for the appellant

Self- represented respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant

This is an appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) by the appellant against an order made in the Magistrates Court at Holland Park on 31 October 2014 to dismiss two charges brought against the respondent. An appeal under this section is by way of rehearing. The court is to conduct a real review of the evidence, giving due weight to the Magistrate’s findings (see Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98). In Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at paragraph 4, Muir JA held that usually for an appellant to succeed, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate the decision is the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error.

In this case, the respondent was charged with the following charges:

Charge 1 – Transport Operations Road Use Management Act 1995 s 80(11), failure to provide specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirements. That on 29 June 2014 at Mt Gravatt East in the Holland Park division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court district in the state of Queensland, the respondent was guilty of an offence against s 79(1) of the Transport Operations Road Use Management Act 1995, in that he, upon requisition duly made by Sergeant Allanson, a police under s 80(8) of the set Act, failed to provide as prescribed a specimen of his breath for analysis.

Charge 2 – Transport Operations Road Use Management Act 1995 s 79(1)(a), driving a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor. That on the 29^th day of June 2014 at Mt Gravatt East in the Holland Park division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court district in the state of Queensland, the respondent, whilst he was under the influence of liquor or a drug did drive a motor vehicle – namely,…

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 Lea v Snajdara

Details

AGLC: Lea v Snajdara [2016] QDC 353
Case: [2016] QDC 353
Decision Date: 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the respondent, Lea, who was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen for analysis, a contravention of section 454A of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Qld). The case was heard and dismissed by the Brisbane Magistrates Court, and Lea sought an appeal against the conviction. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Gotterson, Byrne and White JJA, was tasked with reviewing the decision of the lower court.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Brisbane Magistrates Court erred in law when it dismissed the charge against the respondent. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of section 454A of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Qld) and the onus of proof in relation to the respondent's failure to provide a breath specimen for analysis. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the respondent should have been acquitted based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applied by the lower court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Brisbane Magistrates Court had indeed erred in law. The Court found that the respondent should have been acquitted as the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent had failed to provide a breath specimen for analysis. The Court emphasised that the onus was on the prosecution to establish that the respondent had not provided a specimen for analysis, and the evidence presented was insufficient to meet this burden. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order for dismissal of the charge was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Brisbane Magistrates Court for rehearing before a different magistrate. No order was made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The order for dismissal of the charge is set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to the Brisbane Magistrates Court for rehearing before a different magistrate.

4. No order as to costs.

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:	Lea v Snajdara [2016] QDC 353
PARTIES:	CONSTABLE HAYDEN LEA (appellant) v ANDRE JOHN SNAJDARA (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	4740 of 2014
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Holland Park
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore reasons 15 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 December 2016
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The order for dismissal of the charge is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the Brisbane Magistrates Court for rehearing before a different magistrate. 4. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES- APPEAL – whether respondent should have been acquitted of failing to supply a specimen of breath for analysis Justices Act 1886 (Q) ss 222, 225 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Q) s 80 Fischer v Douglas ex-parte Fischer [1978] Qd R 27 Murphy v Porter ex-parte Murphy [1985] 1 Qd R 59 Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 Wilcox v Doolan (1990) 13 QLR 50
COUNSEL:	Mr J. Hanna for the appellant Self- represented respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant