Peauril v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

[2025] QDC 168

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Peauril v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2025] QDC 168

PARTIES:

DAMIAN THOMAS PEAURIL

(appellant)

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)

(respondent)

FILE NO:

2529/24

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2025

JUDGES:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Application to adjourn the matter is refused.

2.   Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is refused.

3.   Appeal struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION –where the self-represented appellant was convicted of one charge of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence – where the appeal hearing was previously adjourned for medical reasons and the impacts of weather events – where the appellant again sought to adjourn the appeal hearing for medical reasons – whether there was satisfactory material provided to support the adjournment request – whether the time to file a Notice of Appeal should be extended

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

The appellant is self-represented

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

1. This matter is listed before me today for an appeal pursuant to s. 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The appellant has been, to the present time, self-represented, and was self-represented at the original trial in the Magistrates Court. He was convicted on the 24^th of June 2024 following a two-day summary hearing of one charge contrary to s. 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), that is, using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. His notice of appeal is dated 9 September 2024. On that same date, he also filed a notice of application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal to a District Court Judge. And as I read the material, it purports to be an appeal against conviction.

2. This matter has been before the court previously.  It was listed for hearing on 4 April this year.  On that occasion, the hearing was adjourned at the request of the appellant, and it was adjourned on the basis of an email that had been sent by the appellant at 7.30 am on that day to the District Court Appeals Division of the registry.  In that email, the appellant, notwithstanding that he spoke in the third person, stated that he was medically unwell and unable to attend the appeal due to medical injuries sustained in the events “in this matter.”  He also claimed to have been affected by severe weather from recent Cyclone Alfred and asked for the matter to be adjourned for two months.  As I understand it, despite opposition, his Honour Judge Barlow adjourned the matter, and it was subsequently relisted for today.

3. The appellant has, again, sent an email to the Appeals Division of the registry on the morning of this hearing at 2 minutes past 8.00 am.  He, again, has asked for the appeal to not proceed, and again, in the third person, claimed that he is unfit to attend court due to serious injuries sustained in the course of this matter, which include head fractures, loss of eyesight, and other serious injuries.  He then goes on to claim – in a manner that is a little difficult to understand – where he states, “In police custody, hospital medical evidence was established.  It has been provided to the court,” and has, again, sought that the matter be adjourned.  The application is opposed.  The appellant has provided no medical evidence in support of this application nor the previous application.  He seems to word emails in a way that half suggests that this is medical opinion that he is repeating, but they are demonstrably emails only from himself.

4. He has been given every opportunity to advance this matter and received the benefit of much leniency from his Honour Judge Barlow in adjourning on the last occasion, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence to support the adjournment application.  To seek an adjournment on the second occasion for the same reason, but again without any supporting evidence, is an endeavour that is doomed to fail.  The court does not adjourn matters simply on the request of a litigant without evidence in support of the application, and there is no reason to depart from that sensible approach in this matter. 

5. In addition, I have read the material for this matter, including the outlines of submissions of both parties and the transcript of evidence of the hearing below, and it is quite apparent that the appellant’s prospects of success on appeal are, to be quite frank, non-existent.  He has failed to identify any proper ground of appeal, and his argument appears to be, as best as I understand it, that he disagrees with the decision of the Magistrate and, for that reason, the conviction should be overturned.  So that is a further feature of relevance in the consideration of this morning’s resolution of this matter. 

   Orders

   1.   Application to adjourn the matter is refused.

   2.   Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is refused.

   3.   Appeal struck out.