Loh v Steele - [2025] ACTSC 432

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Loh v Steele
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 432
Hearing Date:	25 July 2025
Decision Date:	22 September 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The application in proceeding dated 29 April 2025 is dismissed, and the evidence in the affidavits of the appellant dated 28 April 2025 and 4 June 2025 is not admitted on the appeal. (2) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – parking in bicycle lane – assault of parking inspector after being issued parking infringement notice – causing property damage to unrelated parked car – whether jurisdictional error in magistrate’s decision – where Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction to hear criminal charges not affected by possibility of a civil claim, repairs to the damaged car or involvement of insurer – where appellant’s submissions regarding legality of parking in bicycle lane were based on Wikipedia entry and did not engage with ACT legislation – no jurisdictional error identified – no error disclosed in magistrate’s findings – appeal dismissed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – admission of fresh evidence – evidence includes hearsay repetition of evidence before Magistrates Court and photographs of car demonstrating repair – absence of coherent grounds of appeal – evidence not admissible
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26(1), 116(3) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 214 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 56, 72(1)(b) Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT), ss 153(4), 187(2)
Cases Cited:	Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531 R v Walto [2022] ACTSC 187 R v Wright (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 46
Parties:	Adrian Loh ( Appellant) Katrina Steele ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( Appellant) S McLaughlin ( Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 50 of 2024
Decision Under Appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate JT Campbell Date of Decision: 9 September 2024 Case Title: Steele v Loh Court File Numbers: 238680 238390

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The appellant, Adrian Loh, was charged with three offences arising out of events which occurred on 14 September 2023:
(a)common assault, being the assault of a parking inspector, contrary to s 26(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CAN 10235/2023);
(b)causing damage to property not exceeding $5,000, being a blue Holden Astra, contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act (CAN 10236/2023); and
(c)parking a vehicle in a bicycle lane when not authorised to do so, contrary to s 187(2) of the Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT) (Road Rules Regulation) (CAN 40110/2024).
After being found guilty on each of the three charges at a hearing before the Magistrates Court on 2 September 2024, he was convicted and sentenced by a magistrate on 9 September 2024. For the common assault charge and the property damage charges, he was sentenced on each…

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 Loh v Steele

Details

AGLC: Loh v Steele [2025] ACTSC 432
Case: [2025] ACTSC 432
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Loh against the decision of Steele in the ACT Magistrates Court concerns an incident where Loh was issued a parking infringement notice and subsequently assaulted a parking inspector, causing damage to an unrelated parked car. The central issue before the court was whether there was a jurisdictional error in the magistrate's decision to convict and sentence Loh, particularly regarding the legality of the parking in a bicycle lane and the admission of fresh evidence in the form of photographs and hearsay.

The court examined whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the criminal charges, considering the potential for a civil claim, repairs to the damaged car, or the involvement of an insurer. It was determined that the court's jurisdiction was not affected by these factors. Loh's arguments concerning the legality of parking in a bicycle lane were based on a Wikipedia entry rather than engaging with the relevant ACT legislation, which did not support his contentions. The court found no jurisdictional error in the magistrate's decision and no error in the findings. The appeal was dismissed as there was no evidence of an error in the magistrate's decision or process.

The court also addressed the issue of the admission of fresh evidence, which included hearsay and photographs of the car's repair. The court found that the grounds of appeal did not coherently challenge the admissibility of this evidence and dismissed the application for the evidence to be admitted on the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the evidence presented in the affidavits was not admitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application in proceeding dated 29 April 2025 is dismissed, and the evidence in the affidavits of the appellant dated 28 April 2025 and 4 June 2025 is not admitted on the appeal.

(2) The appeal is 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.