Malezer v QPS

[2016] QDC 311

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Malezer v QPS  [2016] QDC 311

PARTIES:

STEVEN MALEZER

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 37/16

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s222 of the Justices Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Ipswich Magistrates Court       

DELIVERED ON:

16 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

16 November 2016

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed;

2.   The conviction below is set aside, in lieu thereof the charge is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL- VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE- where appeal pursuant to s222 of the Justices Act- where appellant convicted of contravening s287 of the Transport Operation Road Use Management Regulations 2009- whether verdict open on findings of fact-where guilty verdict inconsistence with the acceptance of witness testimony- where appeal allowed and conviction set aside

COUNSEL:

Self-Represented Appellant. 

Ms F Anoozer for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Self-Represented Appellant. 

Officer Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.

HIS HONOUR:   On 29 April 2016, the appellant was convicted after a summary trial in Ipswich Magistrates Court on one charge of failure to stop a vehicle at the scene of a crash, and give required particulars when practicable to do so in contravention of 287 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Road Rules 2009.  Section 287, (2) provides that the driver must stop at the scene of a crash and give the driver’s required particulars within the required time and, if practicable, at the scene of the crash to, relevantly, the owner of any property damaged in the crash.

The appellant was fined $250 and no conviction was recorded.  He appeals against his conviction.  The offence was alleged to have been committed in a car park at the Riverlink Shopping Centre on the afternoon of 28 October 2014.  It was alleged that the appellant’s vehicle collided with a vehicle owned by a Mr Walcraft, and that the appellant failed to leave his particulars.

The central witness in the Prosecution case was Ms Catherine Ruediger.  Ms Ruediger gave evidence that whilst she was at her vehicle which was parked in the car park and attending to putting her children in the vehicle, she heard a loud crunching sound.  She did not witness anything which caused the sound, in the sense that she did not observe what caused the sound.  She looked up toward a car park which was diagonally across from where she was parked.  She saw a vehicle which she described as a blue ute attempting to park.

She said that that vehicle had “obviously crashed” into a vehicle which she described as another ute that was then parked beside the blue ute.  She has then seen the vehicle which she believed had crashed into the other vehicle reverse out.  She described this as making another crunching sound.  She said that she then observed the blue ute start to drive away, and she asked her son to grab her a piece of paper which he did.  She noticed that there…