Martinsen v Favero - [2003] QDC 52

No judgment structure available for this case.

State Reporting Bureau

Transcript of Proceedings

Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC [2003] QDC 052
No 4255 of 2002

JEFFREY DALE MARTINSEN Appellant
and
TANYA FAVERO Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 21/03/2003
ORDER

1

21032003 T12/PAF23 M/T CMS33/2003 (Robin DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: That is an application before the Court by 1
Jeffrey Dale Martinsen who represents himself. The appeal
relates to his conviction of a parking offence prosecuted by
an officer of the Brisbane City Council. He was found to have

committed the offence and fined and ordered to pay costs of 10
Court. He is exercising his right to appeal and now
encounters one of the unattractive features of our system of
justice. The system, of course, costs money to operate. The
particular difficulty Mr Martinsen faces is the cost of
20
obtaining a transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates
Court. There is a 52-page transcript of evidence, et cetera,
and a 15-page ruling by the Magistrate.
Ms Whiting from the Brisbane City Legal Practice has appeared 30
and been helpful to the Court. Understandably, she and the
Practice do not wish to do anything which might infringe
anybody's copyright. He advice is that Mr Martinsen ought to
make appropriate arrangements to get hold of the transcript 40
from the Magistrates Court. Of course, the difficulty facing
him is the cost of that transcript which notoriously runs to
dollars per page.
50
Practice Direction 5 of 2001, Appeals, in paragraph 3 places
on the parties the onus of obtaining a copy of the transcript
of proceedings at first instance in an appeal. Ms Whiting has,
as I understand her, conceded that it will be open to the

ORDER

2 60

21032003 T12/PAF23 M/T CMS33/2003 (Robin DCJ)

Court to order the Council or Ms Favero as a "party" to 1
produce the transcript and, indeed, to make a copy available
to Mr Martinsen acting under the Court's order, which
presumably would provide the requisite protection.

10

I would be somewhat loath, notwithstanding the offer, to
require the Council to take that step. It would involve some
cost to the Council and make inroads, at least in a financial
way, into the success it was achieving in enforcing its

20

parking regime in that it is forced to expend money rather
than take money in from offenders.
It is something of a reproach to the system that there are

areas of activity, the present circumstances being one, in 30
which a person wishing to exercise the right of appeal is
unable to get a transcript of the initial proceedings, at
least without paying substantial sums of money to get it.
Commonsense says that litigants at appellant level are simply 40
not going to be able to prepare their cases properly unless
they do have access to the transcript. If they do not, in the
end it may be that the Court and the whole system pay the
price, because appeals are conducted inefficiently.
50
Mr Martinsen tells me he is a student without the financial
resources to pay the market rate for the transcript himself.
The criticisms that I am making are really general in nature
and would be apt even if Mr Martinsen had the money to spend.

ORDER

3 60

21032003 T12/PAF23 M/T CMS33/2003 (Robin DCJ)

The Court is in possession of the relevant transcript as 1
supplied by the Magistrates Court. It has also been supplied
with the transcript on disk. I have taken the opportunity to
check the disk and obtain a printout of the information

digitally recorded there, which I have marked Exhibit 1A in 10
the case of the transcript of proceedings and Exhibit 1B in
the case of the Magistrate's reasons. It appears to me that,
as one would hope, the digitally recorded information
coincides with what is in the hard copy transcripts supplied
20
to the Court.
I propose to lend Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B to Mr Martinsen on
the basis that he can make good use of it. There is no
particular point in having it languish on the Court file. 30
This is on the basis of a loan arrangement and of Mr Martinsen
returning the exhibit to the Court should the Court require it
back
40
...
HIS HONOUR: The order that I make is: I order that Exhibits
1A and 1B be made available to the appellant on loan for
50
purposes of his preparing his appeal and on the basis he will
return it to the Court if required.

-----

ORDER

4 60

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Martinsen v Favero [2003] QDC 52

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

JUDGE ROBIN QC	[2003] QDC 052
No 4255 of 2002
JEFFREY DALE MARTINSEN	Appellant
and
TANYA FAVERO	Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 21/03/2003
ORDER

HIS HONOUR: That is an application before the Court by	1
Jeffrey Dale Martinsen who represents himself. The appeal
relates to his conviction of a parking offence prosecuted by
an officer of the Brisbane City Council. He was found to have
committed the offence and fined and ordered to pay costs of	10
Court. He is exercising his right to appeal and now
encounters one of the unattractive features of our system of
justice. The system, of course, costs money to operate. The
particular difficulty Mr Martinsen faces is the cost of
20
obtaining a transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates
Court. There is a 52-page transcript of evidence, et cetera,
and a 15-page ruling by the Magistrate.
Ms Whiting from the Brisbane City Legal Practice has appeared	30
and been helpful to the Court. Understandably, she and the
Practice do not wish to do anything which might infringe
anybody's copyright. He advice is that Mr Martinsen ought to
make appropriate arrangements to get hold of the transcript	40
from the Magistrates Court. Of course, the difficulty facing
him is the cost of that transcript which notoriously runs to
dollars per page.
50
Practice Direction 5 of 2001, Appeals, in paragraph 3 places
on the parties the onus of obtaining a copy of the transcript
of proceedings at first instance in an appeal. Ms Whiting has,
as I understand her, conceded that it will be open to the

Court to order the Council or Ms Favero as a "party" to	1
produce the transcript and, indeed, to make a copy available
to Mr Martinsen acting under the Court's order, which
presumably would provide the requisite protection.

areas of activity, the present circumstances being one, in	30
which a person wishing to exercise the right of appeal is
unable to get a transcript of the initial proceedings, at
least without paying substantial sums of money to get it.
Commonsense says that litigants at appellant level are simply	40
not going to be able to prepare their cases properly unless
they do have access to the transcript. If they do not, in the
end it may be that the Court and the whole system pay the
price, because appeals are conducted inefficiently.
50
Mr Martinsen tells me he is a student without the financial
resources to pay the market rate for the transcript himself.
The criticisms that I am making are really general in nature
and would be apt even if Mr Martinsen had the money to spend.

The Court is in possession of the relevant transcript as	1
supplied by the Magistrates Court. It has also been supplied
with the transcript on disk. I have taken the opportunity to
check the disk and obtain a printout of the information
digitally recorded there, which I have marked Exhibit 1A in	10
the case of the transcript of proceedings and Exhibit 1B in
the case of the Magistrate's reasons. It appears to me that,
as one would hope, the digitally recorded information
coincides with what is in the hard copy transcripts supplied
20
to the Court.
I propose to lend Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B to Mr Martinsen on
the basis that he can make good use of it. There is no
particular point in having it languish on the Court file.	30
This is on the basis of a loan arrangement and of Mr Martinsen
returning the exhibit to the Court should the Court require it
back
40
...
HIS HONOUR: The order that I make is: I order that Exhibits
1A and 1B be made available to the appellant on loan for
50
purposes of his preparing his appeal and on the basis he will
return it to the Court if required.