Mbuzi v Roper

[2008] QDC 164

[2008] QDC 164

DISTRICT COURT

JOSIYAS MBUZI	Appellant
and
DEAN ROPER	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 25/03/2008

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE BOTTING

No 2628 of 2007

ORDER appears on his own behalf to argue his case on his own behalf has filed a notice of appeal under section 222 of the Justices Act against a decision of a learned Magistrate sitting at Brisbane, that decision having been made, as I understand it, on the 12th of September last year.

As I understand what I have been told and also from a perusal of the notice of appeal filed by the appellant that decision was one by the learned Magistrate refusing to disqualify herself from further hearing a complaint brought against the appellant.

The objection has been taken, a point perhaps I should say has been made by the respondent that in those circumstances it is not open to the appellant to appeal to this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 222 of the Justices Act.

The appellant, in addressing me, has made clear his view that her Honour's decision was wrong and was made in such circumstances as he finds it difficult to have any confidence in her ability to adjudicate the trial fairly and to essentially give him a fair hearing.

That, of course, is not the question which I have to resolve so far as the preliminary objection that is made. The question is simply one of law, that is, is this appeal competent pursuant to the provisions of section 222 of the Justices Act. That Act provides, or that section, I should say, provides that if a person feels aggrieved as complainant,

2 ORDER breach of duty the person may appeal within one month after the date of the order to a District Court Judge.

defendant or otherwise, by an order made by Justices or a

On the face of it that language is very wide. It refers to a person simply being aggrieved by an order made on a complaint for an offence.

The language is even wider. If one looks at the definition of "order" which is contained in section 4 of the Act, under that definition section, "order" includes any order, adjudication,

grant or refusal of any application or any determination of
whatsoever kind made by a Magistrates Court and any refusal by
a Magistrates Court to hear and determine any complaint or to
entertain any application made to it. Again, the language, I

would observe, is very wide.

The problem, however, which I think faces the appellant in
this matter is that this issue has been looked at previously
and in particular by the Full Court in the case of Schneider v
Curtis [1967] QR 300. In that case a defendant in the Magistrates Court felt aggrieved by a ruling made by a Magistrate that there was a case to answer, that ruling having
made at the conclusion of the prosecution case. The aggrieved
defendant appealed to the District Court and the matter came
on…