Martinsen v Favero

[2005] HCATrans 535

[2005] HCATrans 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B26 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

JEFFREY DALE MARTINSEN

Applicant

and

TANYA FAVERO

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.57 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of Queensland of an offence under s 74 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) (“the Act”) for contravening an indication given by an official traffic sign. The Magistrates Court held that the official traffic sign whose indication the applicant contravened had been “installed on the road at every road entry to the traffic area” in compliance with s 102 of the Act.

The District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from conviction on the grounds that the validity of the establishment of a central traffic area and of the traffic sign is unaffected by the matters of which the applicant complained.

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the District Court did not err in finding that s 102 of the Act did not require exit signs of a traffic area to be erected, that the issues of whether the existence of foliage in front of a sign meant that the sign did not comply with s 102 or whether the failure to cut the foliage meant that the sign was not maintained for the purpose of s 67 of the Act did not warrant the granting of leave to appeal, and that the factual findings that the Magistrate reached were open to the Magistrate.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of errors of law on the part of the Court of Appeal.  None of the grounds of appeal are grounds on which to disturb the decision of the Court of Appeal.

An appeal has no prospects of success and does not raise a question of law of public importance.

The application is dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.57 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED