Nash v Commissioner of Police

[2011] QDC 354

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nash  v Commissioner of Police  [2011] QDC 354

PARTIES:

JORDAN ROGER NASH

(Appellant)

v

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

D81 of 2011

DIVISION:

Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

23/11/2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh District Court

HEARING DATE:

23/11/2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed       

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW –  APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – appellant  had been convicted of one count of contravening a direction or requirement – appellant failed to demonstrate error in law

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s791 (2)

CASES:

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared self-represented

G Churchill for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared self-represented

Queensland Police Service for the respondent

HIS HONOUR:   

Introduction

1. The appellant, Jordan Nash, appeals to the District Court pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 in respect of his conviction before the learned magistrate at Beenleigh on one charge of contravening a direction or requirement for which he was sentenced to a $400, six-month good behaviour bond, with no conviction recorded.

Grounds of Appeal

1. The appellant's grounds of appeal are as follows:-

   -    rule of law;
   -    was unrepresented in court despite disability;
   -    was denied trial by jury as stipulated by the highest law in the land, the Australian Constitution;
   -    did in fact have a reasonable excuse for not providing his mug shot, fingerprints and DNA to the CORRUPT Queensland Police;
   -    was not heard in court.

Trial

1. The trial proceeded at the Beenleigh Magistrates Court with evidence from Police Officers Anthony Shaw and Adam Hankinson, and a taped interview between the appellant and Police Officer Hankinson dated 13 March 2011 was admitted as trial exhibit number 1.

1. The charge alleged against the appellant (after amendment) is as follows -

   "That on the 3rd day of December 2010 at Logan Central [the appellant] without reasonable excuse contravened a direction by a police officer, namely Constable Shaw, under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, namely to attend at Logan Central Police Station within seven days to provide identifying particulars."

1. The appellant pleaded not guilty to this charge.

1. The evidence of Constable Shaw was that he took up with the appellant on 25 November 2010, and discovered (per the police computer) that the appellant was wanted for questioning.  Constable Shaw confirmed that the appellant did not want to be interviewed, and proceeded to issue the appellant with a notice to appear, and a notice to provide identifying particulars (fingerprints and photograph).

1. The evidence of Detective Senior Constable Adam Hankinson was that he located the appellant at Toowoomba State School on 13 March 2011, and arrested him.  En route to the police station, the appellant, in a recorded conversation, admitted that he had failed to provide his identifying particulars.  The appellant's reasons, as stated to police officer Hankinson, were that police were corrupt, that he (the appellant) would look like a villain, and that the police officer would look like a hero.

1. The appellant, as was his right, did not give or call evidence at his trial.

Conclusion

1. The learned magistrate's reasons for decision are succinct and to the point, and bear recitation in full:

"In this matter, the defendant, Jordan Roger Nash, is charged that on the 3rd day of December 2010 at Logan Central in the State of Queensland he, without reasonable excuse, contravened a direction by a police officer, namely Constable Shaw, under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, namely to attend at Logan Central Police Station within seven days to provide identifying particulars. The prosecution bears the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt of each of the elements of the offence.

As best I can make out from statements made and speeches made by the defendant's mother during the course of these proceedings, the defendant does not take issue with the fact that the notice was given to the defendant and that he received it.

Indeed, he makes admissions in a record of interview that I have observed and is before the Court in Exhibit 1 with receiving the notice and that he also accepts that he did not comply with the terms of the notice in that he did not attend at Logan Central Police Station within seven days and provide his identifying particulars.

The reason he gives for failing to attend is he believed it was not prudent to do so and that the police were corrupt and he would look like a villain and that they would look like heroes.  That is not a proper explanation as to why he failed to comply with the terms of the notice.

I find that the notice given was a complying notice under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and I find that the prosecution has proved each of the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and I find the defendant guilty." (Trial transcript pp.1-22 - 1-23)

Discussion of grounds of appeal

1. I set out below each of the specified grounds of appeal and deal with them separately.

A. “Rule of law."

1. It is unclear what this means in this context, and the appellant's outline of submissions does not assist me.  The appellant was entitled to, and received, a fair trial.  In these circumstances, there is no substance to this ground of appeal.

B. "Was unrepresented in court despite disability."

1. The appellant was represented at trial before the learned Magistrate, and before me on this appeal, by his mother, Ms Jennifer Nash.  Ms Nash represented the appellant's interests forcefully and passionately.  There is no absolute right that any person has when appearing in the criminal courts to be legally represented.  It is unremarkable that the appellant appeared before the learned magistrate without legal representation, as he appeared in this court.  He was, however, as I've indicated, represented forcefully and passionately by his mother, Ms Nash.

1. There is no basis to this ground of appeal.

C. "Was denied trial by jury as stipulated by the highest law in the land, the Australian Constitution."

1. There is no right to a jury trial for a summary offence under state legislation.  In these circumstances, given that the magistrate conducted the trial on a summary basis (in accordance with appropriate legislation), the appellant was not "denied trial by jury" pursuant to any purported right under the Australian Constitution.  Accordingly this ground of appeal must fail.

D. "Did in fact have a reasonable excuse for not providing his mug shot, fingerprints and DNA to the CORRUPT Queensland Police."

1. This particular submission was squarely raised before the learned magistrate, who had to decide whether or not it represented "a reasonable excuse" (Police Powers and Responsibilities Act s.791 (2)) for not providing the relevant identifying particulars.

1. The learned magistrate concluded that it was not "reasonable excuse" for not providing the relevant identifying particulars.  I am not persuaded that the learned magistrate was wrong in law in forming that conclusion.  It follows that this ground of appeal must also fail.

E. "Was not heard in court."

1. On the face of it, this ground of appeal does not appear to make any sense.  If, however, it was intended to refer to the appellant not giving evidence at his trial, that of course was his right to decline to do so and nothing could be held against him for failing to give evidence at his own trial.  Inevitably, of course, the magistrate was obliged then to consider the evidence that had been placed before him (which I note included an interview with the appellant) and then make his findings in the light of the evidence that was placed before the court.

1. This ground of appeal (if it amounts to a ground) must also inevitably fail.

Conclusion

1. The appellant has failed to demonstrate, in any way whatsoever, that the learned magistrate erred in law, in finding the appellant guilty as charged of the offence of failing to provide identifying particulars within the specified timeframe.

Order

1. Appeal dismissed.

‑‑‑‑‑