MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Police v Bubbles [2006] QMC 6
PARTIES:
POLICE
(prosecution)
v
MILO BUBBLES
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG160240/04(1)
DIVISION:
Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:
Charge – Summary hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:
6 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane Magistrates Court
HEARING DATE:
6 April 2006
MAGISTRATE:
Payne J
ORDER:
Both charges dismissed and the defendant discharged.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER – public nuisance – whether swearing in a public place only heard by police officers is public nuisance - obstruct police – whether police officer not acting in execution of their duty can be obstructed
COUNSEL:
F Herman (sergeant) for prosecution
B Begg (solicitor) for defendant
SOLICITORS:
Prosecution appeared on own behalf
Legal Aid Queensland for defendant
The defendant, Milo Bubbles, is charged:
1. That on 12 September 2004 at Brisbane in the Central Division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of Queensland one Milo Bubbles committed a public nuisance offence
and further
2. That on 12 September 2004 at Brisbane in the Central Division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of Queensland one Milo Bubbles obstructed a police officer namely David Anthony Dods in the performance of the officer's duties
THE FACTS
At About 9.l0pm on Sunday 12 September 2004, the Defendant, Milo Bubbles, and his wife were walking together through the Brunswick Street Mall, Fortitude Valley. They were walking toward the area of the Brunswick Street Mall Police Beat.
Mr Bubbles, a man of peculiar appearance, was wearing a ripped shirt, a leather studded jacket, tight jeans and boots. His hair was blonde and it was styled or gelled into a single fin or spike of hair said to be a Mohawk.
His wife was also wearing a leather jacket.
Standing in front of the Brunswick Street Mall Police Beat were five police officers; Constables Dods, Hackett and Purcell, Senior Constable Cox and Sergeant Whitehouse.
The five police officers were standing in a group talking or chatting[1] between themselves. Each of the police officers saw Mr Bubbles and his wife as they approached the group. Mr Bubbles was aware the police officers looked in his direction. The police officers were laughing at the time Mr Bubbles approached them[2] and he saw them laughing.
[1] Evidence of Dods Transcript page 3 line 55 "We were just having a conversation amongst ourselves of no real relevance to anything. Just talking about everyday things basically." Two of the Police officers were drinking coffee.
[2] Evidence of Constable Dods Transcript Page 4 line 51 "Okay. Any Laughing?—Yes”
As Mr Bubbles and his wife walked through the group of police officers he said the words "fucking wankers".
After saying the words Mr Bubbles continued to walk in the same direction and at the same pace that he had been walking. Constable Dods called to Mr Bubbles to stop on 2 occasions but he did not stop and continued to walk at the same pace. He did not…
Continue reading Police v Bubbles
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Bubbles [2006] QMC 6
- Case
- [2006] QMC 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature of public nuisance, which is a common law offence that involves an act or omission that interferes with the comfort, repose or convenience of the public or a class of the public. In this case, the court found that the defendant's actions did not amount to a public nuisance as they were not heard by members of the public, and therefore did not interfere with their comfort, repose or convenience. The court also examined the nature of obstructing a police officer, which is a statutory offence that involves intentionally obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty. In this case, the court found that an obstruction of a police officer could only occur when the officer was acting in the execution of their duty, and that the police officer in question was not doing so at the time of the alleged obstruction. The court therefore found that the defendant's actions did not amount to obstructing a police officer.
Orders
Orders of the court
Both charges dismissed and the defendant discharged.
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.