Lucas v Commissioner of Police

[2009] QDC 32

[2009] QDC 32

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE NOUD

No 2526 of 2008

STEPHEN JOHN LUCAS	Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 23/02/2009
ORDER

1-1

23022009 D.1 T(3)10-11/RAS(BNE) M/T BRIS29 (Noud DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of a	1
Magistrate. The Magistrate made her decision on 28 August 2008. Her Honour had before her the appellant's complaint and summons. It involved 3 people, the Commissioner of Police, Mr Wishart and Mrs McCulloch. The Magistrate dismissed the

10

complaint on the ground that it contained no valid charge.

The appellant has appeared on the appeal and has referred me
to his outline and other material. Mr Burrow appeared for the

Commissioner. I have had regard to Mr Burrow's outline as

20

well. Mr Wishart and Mrs McCulloch did not appear on the
appeal.

The appellant has placed his grievances in the context of a fire at Sandgate. In his complaint in the Magistrates Court

30

he then went on to set out a variety of events occurring at
premises at upper Roma Street. Included in those events were
stealing, damaging property, a dispute over a bond and perhaps
rent and assault. I am referring to the annexure to his

complaint for these few details but the document itself needs

40

to be perused for the purpose of ascertaining its complexity.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, this document forming part of the appellant's complaint lacks consistency. There is no definite or stable pattern to it, let alone an allegation

50

of a precise offence or more than one if it were possible to
join different charges.
23022009 D.1 T(3)10-11/RAS(BNE) M/T BRIS29 (Noud DCJ) 1-2 ORDER 60

I do not think that the appellant's outline improves matters.	1
There he raises violence, mistreatment, trouble at the Casino, being set upon a woman involved in drug trafficking and so on.
In the course of his oral submissions the appellant said he

10

was only concerned with acts of violence. It is this which he
wishes to pursue. He said that Mr Wishart procured 7 people
to mistreat him although I gather from what the appellant told
me that it is difficult for him to name or identify these

persons, although that matter was not pursued and perhaps the

20

appellant would be able to provide such details if given the
opportunity. In the course of my discussions with him I in
fact suggested to him, the appellant, that he get further

advice in relation to the formulation of charges.

30

In relation to other events, in the course of his submissions, the appellant complained about wrongful behaviour on the part of the police, something which he has done in earlier documents. But it is necessary to come back to the complaint itself. The Magistrate dismissed it because it did not

40

disclose a valid offence or offences. I think the Magistrate
had in mind section 102C(1) of the Justices Act, which in my
opinion authorises the dismissal of a complaint for that and
other reasons, for example, that it is an abuse of process. I

am sure there would be an inherent jurisdiction to do this as

50

well.

While I do not doubt the sincerity of the appellant, I think
his complaint is an abuse of process though he does not intend
23022009 D.1 T(3)10-11/RAS(BNE) M/T BRIS29 (Noud DCJ) 1-3 ORDER 60

that. I appreciate that. I suggested, as I said earlier on,	1
that he might consider getting further advice in relation to the matter.
In any event, I am of the opinion that the Magistrate was

10

right in dismissing the complaint for the reason that the should be dismissed. For these reasons, I order that the appeal be dismissed.

20

-----

30

40

50

1-4 ORDER 60