Legal Research
Cases
Owen v Edwards

Owen v Edwards

Case [2006] QCA 526 8 December 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526

PARTIES:

OWEN, Ronald
(applicant/appellant)
v
EDWARDS, Darren Andrew
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2006
DC No 17 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 September 2006

JUDGES:

Keane JA, Jones and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal allowed
2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS – appeal from decision of District Court which overturned Magistrate’s decision to permanently stay summary proceedings against the applicant – lengthy delay in having matters heard – delays caused by inefficiency rather than malice by police prosecutions – no loss of evidence causing prejudice – whether delay constitutes an abuse of process – whether proceedings should be permanently stayed

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - PARTICULAR MATTERS - CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – respondent failed to comply with various procedural requirements in lodging appeal including one day late lodgment of appeal and non-compliance with practice directions – applicant not disadvantaged by non-compliance – whether procedural irregularities and non-compliance invalidate the appeal

PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – MAGISTRATES COURTS – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – respondent appealed from decision of Magistrate to permanently stay summary proceedings against the applicant – respondent a Detective Sergeant of Police – whether respondent is an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Justices Act1886 (Qld) and has standing to lodge the appeal

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 222(1), s 224(1)

Brown v Owen [2005] QDC 040; DC No 10 of 2004, 4 March 2005, considered
Day v Hunter [1964] VR 845, followed
Double Time Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] QCA 57; [2002] 1 Qd R 371, followed
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed
R v Tait [1998] QCA 304; [1999] 2 Qd R 667, considered
Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J Davis SC, with M J A Dight, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Queensland Police Service Solicitors Office for the respondent

JA: KEANEI agree with the reasons of Jones J and with the orders proposed by his Honour.

JONES J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court pronounced on 4 April 2006 revising a decision of the Gympie Magistrates Court by which summary trial proceedings were permanently stayed. The appeal to the District Court was instituted pursuant to s 222 of Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and was filed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Owen v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526
Case: [2006] QCA 526
Decision Date: 8 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Owen v Edwards, the applicant sought a permanent stay of summary proceedings against him that were initiated by the respondent, a Detective Sergeant of Police. The dispute arose from an initial decision by a Magistrate to permanently stay the proceedings, which was subsequently overturned by the District Court. The crux of the matter was whether the lengthy delays in hearing the case constituted an abuse of process warranting a permanent stay, and whether the respondent had standing to appeal the Magistrate's decision. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with resolving these issues.

The central legal questions before the court included whether the considerable delays in the proceedings, which were attributed to inefficiencies rather than any malicious intent by the police prosecutions, constituted an abuse of process. Another issue was whether the procedural irregularities and non-compliance by the respondent, such as the late lodgment of the appeal and failure to adhere to certain practice directions, invalidated the appeal. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the respondent qualified as an aggrieved party under the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) to have the legal standing to pursue the appeal.

The court found that the delays did not amount to an abuse of process because there was no evidence of prejudice due to lost evidence and the delays were due to inefficiencies. It also concluded that the procedural irregularities and non-compliance by the respondent did not invalidate the appeal as the applicant was not disadvantaged by these lapses. Furthermore, the court ruled that the respondent, as a Detective Sergeant of Police, was indeed an aggrieved party with standing to appeal the Magistrate's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was allowed and the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal allowed

2. Appeal dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526

Most Recent Citation

Barac v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] QCA 112

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Robertson v Robertson and others and Commissioner of Police
[2023] QDC 106 Para 1

…As Jones J stated in Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526 (with Keane JA and Douglas J agreeing) ( Owen v Edwards ) when considering s 222(1) of the Justices Act “only the parties can properly be referred to as either complainant or defendant”.[11] The applicant was the victim but was not a party to the proceeding. In t…
Commissioner of Police v Stjernqvist
[2022] QDC 95 Para 1

…In Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526, Jones J at [27] observed with respect to the standing of a person to commence an appeal under s 222 JA:…
Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price
[2017] QCATA 99 Para 37

…ich the same phrase was considered in the context of a person’s standing to appeal to the District Court under the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). [16][2006] QCA 526.…
Dart v Singer
[2012] QDC 61 Para 1

…In considering these issues I have, so far as the leave issue is concerned, made reference to R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; and Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526.…
Chisholm v Williams & Commissioner of Police
[2010] QDC 68 Para 23

…es of an offence, those who run the prosecution of it by virtue of that role are directly affected, and undoubtedly have standing. See Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526 at [23].…
Barac v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2007] QCA 112 Para 1

…ohannsen & Chambers (1996) 87 A Crim R 126 at 134. [16](1980) 147 CLR 75 at 111. [17]See also R v Clarkson [1987] VR 962 at 973; Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526 at [10], [34] – [35].…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Double Time Pty Ltd v Ryan
[2001] QCA 57

…QDC 040; DC No 10 of 2004, 4 March 2005, considered Day v Hunter [1964] VR 845, followed Double Time Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] QCA 57; [2002] 1 Qd R 371, followed Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed R v Tait [1998] QCA 304; [1999] 2 Qd R 667, considered Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378, follo…
Edwards v Raabe; Moore v Raabe
[2000] VSC 471 Para 1

…s in a position to ‘feel aggrieved’ such as to allow the institution of an appeal under this legislation. For this reason Ground G fails. [13]See Edwards v Raabe (2000) 117 A Crim R 191…
R v Tait
[1998] QCA 304

…v Ryan [2001] QCA 57; [2002] 1 Qd R 371, followed Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed R v Tait [1998] QCA 304; [1999] 2 Qd R 667, considered Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378, followed COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf P J Davis SC, with M J A Dight, for the respondent SOLI…
Walton v Gardiner
[1993] HCA 77 Para 2

…discretion to permanently halt a prosecution: R v Barton (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 102 and 106.” [2](1989) 168 CLR 23 [3][1987] VR 962 at 873 [4](1993) 177 CLR 379 [5](1996) 87 A Crim R 126 [6]Reasons [20] Appeal to the Court of Appeal…
Jago v District Court (NSW)
[1989] HCA 46

…nsidered Day v Hunter [1964] VR 845, followed Double Time Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] QCA 57; [2002] 1 Qd R 371, followed Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed R v Tait [1998] QCA 304; [1999] 2 Qd R 667, considered Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378, followed COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf P J Davis…
Barton v the Queen
[1980] HCA 48 Para 2

…one of the factors to be balanced by a court when it is being asked to exercise the discretion to permanently halt a prosecution: R v Barton (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 102 and 106.” [2](1989) 168 CLR 23 [3][1987] VR 962 at 873 [4](1993) 177 CLR 379 [5](1996) 87 A Crim R 126 [6]Reasons [20] Appeal to the Court of Appeal…
In the case of Brown v Owen
[2005] QDC 040 Para 1

…ng Magistrate thereupon dismissed the charges but his decision was overturned on appeal to the District Court on 4 March 2005. See Brown v Owen [2005] QDC 040.…
[1894] AC 8
[1894] AC 8 Para 1

…of the words in question here finds support, we think, in the speech of Lord Herschell LC in Powell v Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co [1894] AC 8 at p 10, where the question he had to consider was whether the respondents were ‘persons aggrieved’ within the meaning of s 90 of the Trademarks Act 1883 . … [10]See s…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
222 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526
PARTIES:	OWEN, Ronald (applicant/appellant) v EDWARDS, Darren Andrew (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 106 of 2006 DC No 17 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 September 2006
JUDGES:	Keane JA, Jones and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal allowed 2. Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS – appeal from decision of District Court which overturned Magistrate’s decision to permanently stay summary proceedings against the applicant – lengthy delay in having matters heard – delays caused by inefficiency rather than malice by police prosecutions – no loss of evidence causing prejudice – whether delay constitutes an abuse of process – whether proceedings should be permanently stayed CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - PARTICULAR MATTERS - CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – respondent failed to comply with various procedural requirements in lodging appeal including one day late lodgment of appeal and non-compliance with practice directions – applicant not disadvantaged by non-compliance – whether procedural irregularities and non-compliance invalidate the appeal PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – MAGISTRATES COURTS – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – respondent appealed from decision of Magistrate to permanently stay summary proceedings against the applicant – respondent a Detective Sergeant of Police – whether respondent is an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Justices Act1886 (Qld) and has standing to lodge the appeal Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 222(1), s 224(1) Brown v Owen [2005] QDC 040; DC No 10 of 2004, 4 March 2005, considered Day v Hunter [1964] VR 845, followed Double Time Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] QCA 57; [2002] 1 Qd R 371, followed Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed R v Tait [1998] QCA 304; [1999] 2 Qd R 667, considered Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P J Davis SC, with M J A Dight, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Queensland Police Service Solicitors Office for the respondent