MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Police v Strickland [2012] QMC 3
PARTIES:
POLICE
(prosecution)
v
LESLIE CALVIN STRICKLAND
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG56560/11(4)
DIVISION:
Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:
Charge
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Mareeba
DELIVERED ON:
6 February 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Mareeba
HEARING DATE:
3 November 2011, 4 November 2011
MAGISTRATE:
Braes TJ
ORDER:
Charge dismissed, defendant discharged.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER – what constitutes public nuisance – adequacy of particulars
Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld), s 6
COUNSEL:
Armitage (senior constable) for prosecution
Veschetti (solicitor) for defendant
SOLICITORS:
Prosecution on own behalf
Offence -Section 6 Summary Offences Act 2006 commit public nuisance.
Leslie Calvin Strickland has pleaded not guilty to one charge of committing a public nuisance offence.
In order for me to find Mr Strickland guilty of the charge I must be satisfied that all the elements of the charge have been proven to the standard required, that being beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proving those elements and of negativing any excuse raised to such standard is, of course, upon the prosecution. Should the prosecution fail to prove those elements to the standard required, then I must of necessity acquit Mr Strickland of the charge.
At the commencement of the hearing Ms Veschetti, solicitor representing Mr Strickland, confirmed the elements of date, time and place were admitted.
Ms Veschetti said the issue to be determined by me would be one of identity, Mr Strickland denying he was the person responsible for the acts complained of.
At the conclusion of the hearing I was provided with a letter of 2 November 2011 written by Senior Constable Sharron Armitage who prosecuted this matter setting out particulars of the offence charged. Those particulars identify the relevant provision of the legislation as Section 6 of the Summary Offences Act 2006. The time date and place were particularised as “between 0030 HRS - 0130 HRS, 1 January 2010, Byrnes Street Mareeba in the State of Queensland”.
The following further particulars were provided –
“It will be alleged that at the abovementioned time, date and place the defendant Strickland behaved in a manner which constituted a public nuisance by using obscene language, by acting in a threatening manner and acting in a violent manner and such other matters as may on the evidence in the opinion of the court constitute public nuisance.”
These acts are then further particularised with reference to the evidence.
“It will be further alleged that defendant Strickland was seen and heard by numerous witnesses including police officers punching his chest, yelling to Aboriginal men to come and fight him using words to the effect of “come on cunts, come on” and “fuck off I’m going to kill those cunts”. Strickland was observed fighting Aboriginal men and pushing an Aboriginal person in the chest. Strickland also told police officers “fuck off cunt”.
No objection was taken at the commencement or throughout the hearing as to the adequacy of the particulars given. The…
Continue reading Police v Strickland
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Strickland [2012] QMC 3
- Case
- [2012] QMC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the particulars provided to the defendant were sufficient to inform him of the charge against him in a manner that complied with statutory requirements. Strickland argued that the particulars were vague and did not specify the exact nature of the alleged public nuisance, thereby failing to meet the standards set by relevant legislation. The court had to determine whether the particulars were adequate to enable Strickland to understand the charge and prepare a defence.
The court found that the particulars did not provide sufficient detail regarding the specific acts that constituted the public nuisance. The court held that for a charge of public nuisance to be valid, the particulars must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the nature of the alleged offence. In Strickland's case, the court determined that the particulars were too vague and did not meet the necessary legal standards. Consequently, the court dismissed the charge and discharged the defendant, as the particulars failed to provide the required level of detail.
Orders
Orders of the court
Charge dismissed, 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.