DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Pettet v Van der Merwe [2014] QDC 163 |
PARTIES: | IAN EDWARD PETTET (appellant) v WALTER JAMES VAN DER MERWE (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 54/14 |
DIVISION: | Appellate |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Magistrates Court at Caloundra |
DELIVERED ON: | 24 July 2014 ex tempore |
DELIVERED AT: | Maroochydore |
HEARING DATE: | 24 July 2014 |
JUDGE: | Robertson DCJ |
ORDER: | 1. Appeals dismissed 2. Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, fixed at $22,315.22 |
CATCHWORDS: | LOCAL GOVERNMENT - ELECTIONS - OFFENCES - where the appellant was convicted and sentenced before the learned Magistrate for two offences of failure to vote - where the appellant applied to the High Court of Australia for removal of the appellant’s proceedings before the learned Magistrate and the learned appeal Judge as the appellant’s proceedings concerned a Commonwealth matter APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - CRIMINAL LAW - ERROR OF LAW - where the appellant appeals on a number of grounds against the convictions, sentences and cost orders imposed by the learned Magistrate - where the appellant left the courtroom during the proceedings before the learned Magistrate - whether the proceedings were conducted according to law by the learned Magistrate in the absence of the appellant - whether any abuse of process or errors of law occurred in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate - whether any grounds of appeal are made out by the appellant Legislation Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s24AA Australian Constitution s 44 Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 134, s 186(1)(a), s 186(4) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 95 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39(2), s 40, s40(1), s 78B, s 78B(1) Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 52, s52(1), s 83A, s 142, s 142A, s 142A(4)(b)(iii), s 146(1)(a), s 147, s 222, s 223, s 223(1), s 225(3), part 6 Local Government Electoral Act 2001 (Qld) s 168(1) State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld) s56, s 57(3), s 60(4)(c) Cases House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330 Isenglaas v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 6 Kosteska v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 266 Sue v Hill (1998) 199 CLR 462 |
COUNSEL: | Mr IE Pettet for the appellant (self-represented) Ms DM Galbraith for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Mr IE Pettet for the appellant (self-represented) Crown Law for the respondent |
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against convictions, sentences, and costs orders imposed by her Honour Magistrate Tonkin in the Caloundra Magistrates Court on the 21st of February 2014. The appellant, Ian Edward Pettet was before the Court on two offences of failure to vote.
Firstly, it was alleged that Mr Pettet had breached section 168(1) of the Local Government Electoral Act 2001. The complaint of the respondent made under oath by complaint filed on the 24th of October 2013 was to the effect that “between the 16th of April 2012 and…
Continue reading Pettet v Van der Merwe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pettet v Van der Merwe [2014] QDC 163
- Case
- [2014] QDC 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues involved the validity of the proceedings and whether any errors or abuse of process occurred in the absence of the appellant. The court needed to decide if the trial was conducted lawfully without the appellant present and if there were any grounds for appeal, including the absence of the appellant's legal representative and the alleged procedural errors. The court also had to consider whether the appeal should proceed under the Commonwealth's jurisdiction.
The court found that the appellant's absence from the courtroom did not render the proceedings unlawful, as the appellant had not established any procedural irregularity or prejudice. The court concluded that the trial was conducted according to law and there was no abuse of process. The court also found that none of the grounds of appeal were substantiated, as the appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $22,315.22.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeals dismissed
2. Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, fixed at $22,315.22
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.