Lucas v Casson

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

[2008] QDC 163

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE FORDE

No 2721 of 2007

STEPHEN JOHN LUCAS Appellant
and
JACQUELYN CASSON Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 25/02/2008

ORDER
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against the decision of the

1

Magistrate, Mr Nunan, who gave his reasons on the 27th of August 2007. The appellant, Mr Lucas, was charged on that occasion with committing a public nuisance which occurred on the 14th of June 2007.

10

...

HIS HONOUR: This is the only offence with which I am dealing
today. The learned Magistrate on that occasion fined the

appellant $100 and was satisfied that there was a public 20
nuisance.

The facts were that on the day in question the appellant was sitting at Toombul and had been sitting there for some time. He says that he was minding his own business and staff became

30

concerned that he had been sitting there for too long and
police and security were called.
It matters not at this point as to why he was sitting there
but when approached by police it seems that there was 40
conversation between the appellant and police and, as a result
of that, the appellant was charged.
The decision of the Magistrate placed reliance on the evidence
of Constable Casson who it is said the appellant called "a 50
fucking bitch". This was denied by the appellant.
It becomes a question then of whether there was evidence upon
2 ORDER 60

1

which the Magistrate could act in this case to convict, that
is to support the evidence of the complainant, Constable

Casson (see Bailey v. Coston CA261 of 1993).

The Magistrate said that he was impressed with her evidence, 10
that she did not know the appellant before this day, that she
had no pre-knowledge of him and, what is probably relevant
here, the Magistrate in his reasons in relation to the actual
offence did not make mention in any way of the mental
condition of the appellant. 20
As the Magistrate sits as both Judge and jury, he is required
to act upon the evidence and not irrelevancies and, in this
instance, at least on the written reasons as far as the
offence is concerned, as to be distinguished from the reasons 30
given when he punished the appellant, he did make no mention
of the mental condition of the appellant.
In determining whether such words used amounted to public
nuisance, the Magistrate had regard to the decision of Green 40
v. Ashton where a person called a police officer "a fucking
cunt". This language has been, by virtue of the amendments to
the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act, section 7A, held
to be of an abusive nature to a police officer who can, for
all purposes, be regarded as a member of the public. 50

In the context of that day and the circumstances where there were many people around and the overall circumstances of this fracas, it could be said that such language,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lucas v Casson 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
[2008] QDC 163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lucas v Casson, the dispute arose between the parties in relation to a property transaction. The plaintiff, Lucas, alleged that the defendant, Casson, had breached certain terms of a contract concerning a property sale. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary concern was whether the defendant had fulfilled his contractual obligations under the terms of the property sale agreement.

The legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation of the contract and whether there was a breach of any of the terms. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendant had fulfilled his obligation to provide a certificate of title for the property as required by the contract. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether there were any other terms of the contract that the defendant had failed to comply with.

The court, in its reasoning, closely examined the terms of the contract between the parties. It found that the defendant had indeed failed to provide a certificate of title as required by the contract. Furthermore, the court identified that there were other terms which the defendant had not adhered to, leading to a breach of contract. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Lucas, finding that the defendant, Casson, had breached the contract. The court ordered that the defendant compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred due to the breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

60

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.