Matthews v Rantala

[2010] QDC 128

[2010] QDC 128

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE CLARE SC
No 671 of 2010

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS	Appellant
and
HENRI RANTALA	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 19/03/2010 ORDER

1-1

HER HONOUR: Mr Mathews applies for an extension of time to

1

appeal against a conviction for public nuisance. In truth,
there is no conviction to appeal. This is because the matter

has already been corrected. The finding of guilt was reopened and the charge was dismissed in 2008. Mr Mathews is concerned that the reopening affected only his sentence but not the	10
conviction. The conviction has actually been removed from his criminal history. The absence of a standing conviction means that there is nothing to appeal.
The application for an extension of time therefore must be	20
refused.
While Mr Mathews is concerned about the validity of the
process by which he was exonerated, this ruling should serve
as a formal confirmation and a public record of the fact that,	30
at this point in time, Mr Mathews does not have a conviction for public nuisance.
On the 1st of June 2005 a magistrate found Mr Mathews guilty
of creating a public nuisance on the 29th of November 2004.	40
That finding of guilt was an error. The matter was corrected three years later on the 1st of December 2008 when the same magistrate moved to reopen his ruling and revoke his finding of guilt.
50
Because there was no evidence against him the charge of public nuisance was dismissed and the magistrate discharged

The prosecution later offered no evidence against Mr Mathews. matter was finalised on that date. 1-2 ORDER 60

Mr Mathews is not guilty of the public nuisance offence with

which he was charged in 2004.	10
...

-----

20

30

40

50

1-3 ORDER 60