DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Moore v Queensland Police Service (No. 2) [2012] QDC 218
PARTIES:
Aaron Mark Moore
(appellant)
v
Queensland Police Service
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
18/2011
DIVISION:
Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal from conviction (costs)
ORIGINATING COURT:
Mount Isa Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:
31 August, 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
28 February 2012
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
Senior Constable BJ McDonell pay the appellant Aaron Mark Moore the sum of $ 4,764.70.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Costs of appeal awarded after successful appeal – where matter remitted for retrial – costs of summary proceedings awarded where magistrate fell into errors of law
LEGISLATION:
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss. 158(1), 158A(1) and (2), 226 and 232A
Justices Regulation2004 (Qld), Schedule 2 – Scale of Costs
CASES:
COUNSEL:
M Hibble for the appellant
C Winlaw for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Warren Hunter solicitor for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Introduction
The appellant, Aaron Moore, succeeded in his appeal in respect of two charges, a public nuisance offence and an obstruct police offence. In respect of the public nuisance offence, a verdict of acquittal was entered. In respect of the obstruct police charge, the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court of Mount Isa for retrial before a different magistrate.[1]
[1]Moore v Queensland Police Service [2012] QDC 133 paras 34 [- 36].
The parties subsequently provided written submissions to this court on the issue of costs.
The Law
Pursuant to Justices Act s.226, the District Court on appeal “may make such order as to costs to be paid by either party as the Judge may think just.” The power to order costs includes not only the costs of the appeal, but also the costs of the original Magistrates Court proceedings.[2]
[2]Justices Act s.225 (2) & (3).
Costs on appeal are limited, pursuant to Justices Act s.232A, up to the amount prescribed by Schedule 2 – Scale of Costs,[3] although a higher amount may be allowed for costs if the judge on appeal is satisfied “that the higher amount is just having regard to the special difficulty, complexity or importance of the appeal.”[4]
[3]Justice Regulation 2004.
[4]Justices Act s.232A(2).
Pursuant to Justices Act s.158(1), there is a power in the Magistrates Court to order costs on a dismissal that seem “just and reasonable”, subject to the constraints of Justices Act s.158A(1) and (2). The costs which can be ordered are again restricted to the amounts contained in Schedule 2 – Scale of Costs,[5] unless the court is satisfied “that [a] higher amount is just and reasonable having regard to the special difficulty, complexity or importance of the case.”[6]
[5]Justice Regulation 2004
[6]Justices Act s.158B(2).
Discussion
I consider that the appellant, who was completely successful on appeal, should be entitled to the costs of appeal as follows:-
(a) Work up to and including day 1 of the appeal (increased by 20% for appeal to District Court judge) $1,800 (b) Application on costs $ 875 (c) Court attendance for June 2012 – delivery of appeal decision $ 125 (d) Court attendance (date to be specified) on decision on costs $ 125 TOTAL $2,925
In respect of the Magistrates Court summary proceedings, I am not persuaded that there was any special difficulty, complexity and/or importance of the case. The issue was very clearly the errors of law on the part of the learned magistrate, both in a purported widening of particulars and a failure to identify a specific element of the charge of obstruct police which was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In those circumstances, I consider that the appellant is entitled to the costs of the trial, even though the charge of “obstruct police” is to be remitted to the Magistrates Court for retrial. Accordingly the appellant is entitled to the following costs:
(a) Work for hearing of complaint up to and including day 1 $1,500.00 (b) Attending for the delivery of the Magistrate’s decision $ 250.00 (c) Disbursements (doctor’s report and court depositions) $ 89.70 TOTAL $1,839.70
Order
That Senior Constable BJ McDonell pay the appellant Aaron Mark Moore the sum of $ 4,764.70.
- AGLC
- Moore v Queensland Police Service (No. 2) [2012] QDC 218
- Case
- [2012] QDC 218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to the costs of the appeal and the summary proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine if the magistrate's errors of law warranted the awarding of costs to the appellant. The court also needed to consider the procedural aspects of awarding such costs, particularly in light of the appeal's outcome and the subsequent remission for retrial.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the magistrate's errors of law were significant enough to warrant the awarding of costs to the appellant. The court recognised that the magistrate's misapplication of the law had led to an unjust outcome for the appellant, necessitating the award of costs to compensate for the legal expenses incurred. The court noted that such an award was appropriate not only for the appeal but also for the summary proceedings where the magistrate's errors had a direct impact. The court thus ruled in favour of the appellant, ordering Senior Constable BJ McDonell to pay Aaron Mark Moore the sum of $4,764.70.
The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted without errors of law and that where such errors occur, appropriate remedies, including the awarding of costs, are available to the aggrieved party. This ruling provided clarity on the circumstances under which costs may be awarded in cases where a magistrate's errors necessitate a retrial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Senior Constable BJ McDonell pay the appellant Aaron Mark Moore the sum of $ 4,764.70.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.