Police v Bubbles

Case [2006] QMC 6


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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. His wife was also wearing a leather jacket.

  1. 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.

  1. 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”

  1. As Mr Bubbles and his wife walked through the group of police officers he said the words "fucking wankers".

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Police v Bubbles [2006] QMC 6
Case
[2006] QMC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction and sentence by the defendant, Bubbles, in relation to two charges: one of public nuisance and one of obstructing a police officer. The defendant was alleged to have sworn in a public place, which was only heard by police officers, and to have obstructed a police officer who was not acting in the execution of their duty. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted public nuisance and whether an obstruction of a police officer could occur when the officer was not acting in the execution of their duty. 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 that an obstruction of a police officer could only occur when the officer was acting in the execution of their duty. Accordingly, both charges were dismissed and the defendant was discharged.

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.