Mowen v QPS

Case [2022] QDC 89

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mowen v QPS [2022] QDC 089

PARTIES:

BEVAN ALLAN MOWEN

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

51/21

DIVISION:

Traffic

PROCEEDING:

Appeal - Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2022

JUDGE:

Clarke DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal be dismissed

2.   No order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC –– UNLICENCED DRIVING – summary hearing – whether error of law

LEGISLATION:

CASES: 

APPEARANCES:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223 and 225

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) s 78 (1), (3)(H)

State Penalties Enforcement Act1999 (Qld)

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84

Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679

McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Ms M. Yousufzai, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. The appellant chooses not to acknowledge an order of driver licence disqualification imposed upon him in the Magistrates Court on 4 October 2019. He considered his conviction on that occasion for driving while his licence had been suspended by the State Penalty Enforcement Register (‘SPER’) to be “void” or “invalid”. The appellant’s licence had been suspended following an earlier conviction in 2015 for “refusing” to vote.[1] The appellant confirmed that the fine imposed in 2015 remains unpaid and he has no intention of paying the fine. Much of the appellant’s contentions in this appeal relate to his beliefs about a constitutional conflict between the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) about the age a voter becomes eligible, which in turn impacts whether voting is compulsory. He further argues that because he lives in an isolated location and experiences ill-health, he needs a driver licence, and he is being victimised contrary to s 42 of the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth).

    [1]Pursuant to State Penalties Enforcement Act1999 (Qld).

  2. Police intercepted the appellant driving on 27 December 2020. He told police he knew he wasn’t licenced and was deliberately driving so that he could get caught and return to court to argue about the unlawfulness of the earlier disqualification of his driver licence. The appellant confirmed during the hearing of this appeal he has not sought to challenge (or appeal) the convictions in 2015 or 2019. The circuitous argument appears to be that there was no need to appeal orders which were void or invalid.

  3. The appellant was subsequently convicted of unlicenced driving repeat offender by an acting Magistrate on 26 August 2021.[2]

    [2]Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) s 78(1), (3)(H).

  4. The ground of appeal is succinctly, yet unhelpfully, framed as “error of law”.

  5. The respondent says the appeal against the appellant’s conviction should be dismissed on the misconceived basis that the appellant is only entitled to appeal…

Continue reading Mowen v QPS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mowen v QPS [2022] QDC 89
Case
[2022] QDC 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Mowen v QPS involved a defendant appealing against a conviction for unlicensed driving. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the trial magistrate erred in law during the summary hearing. The defendant, Mowen, argued that there was an error in the legal process that led to his conviction, which he claimed warranted a reversal of the decision. The Queensland Police Service (QPS) defended the conviction, asserting that the trial was conducted correctly and that the defendant's argument lacked merit.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial magistrate had made a significant error in law that would necessitate a re-evaluation of the conviction. This involved a careful examination of the procedures followed during the summary hearing and whether these procedures complied with the statutory requirements and legal precedents. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial magistrate adequately considered all relevant factors and whether there was any procedural misstep that could have influenced the outcome of the trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial magistrate did not make any significant errors in law. The court concluded that the magistrate had properly considered the evidence and the relevant legal principles in reaching the conviction. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds for the argument that the trial magistrate's decisions were legally flawed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal protocols during summary hearings and confirmed that the conviction stood as rendered by the trial magistrate. The court made no order as to costs, reflecting its view that the appeal was not well-founded.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed

2. No order as to costs

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.