PR v KJ

[2022] QDC 29

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

PR v KJ [2022] QDC 29

PARTIES:

PR
(appellant)

v

KJ
(respondent)

FILE NO:

145/21

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court
Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Maroochydore

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.          The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is dismissed;

2.          The appeal is dismissed;

3.          The order of the Magistrate of 11 August 2020 is confirmed.

LEGISLATION:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 51, 145, s 165, s 168, s 169, s 184

CASES:

DMO v RPD [2009] QDC 92, [5]-[6]
HBY v WBI & Anor [2020] QDC 81, [16]-[18]
HZA v ZHA [2018] QDC 125
R v Hodges [2019] 1 Qd R 172; [2018] QCA 92, [21]
R v Spina [2012] QCA 179, [32]
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304

APPEARANCES:

K Pearson instructed by Hawkes Lawyers for the appellant
P Travers instructed by ABA Lawyers for the respondent

Introduction

1. The appellant and respondent were once in a relationship. The appellant’s first language is not English. On 11 August 2020 the appellant appeared before a Magistrate to answer an application by the respondent for a protection order. The appellant was represented by a duty lawyer. The duty lawyer informed the Magistrate the appellant understood the proposed conditions and consented to a protection order being made without admissions by the appellant. The order was made.

2. About 12 months after the appeal period expired, the appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the decision of the Magistrate. The questions presented by this appeal are:

   (a)     Should the appellant have an extension of time within which to appeal?

   (b)     Should the order be set aside on the basis that the Magistrate did not comply with statutory requirements?

   (c)     Should it be set aside because the appellant did not understand the proceeding and as such the hearing was unfair?

3. In my view, the appellant should not have an extension of time within which to appeal because the appeal does not have any prospect of succeeding. As a consequence, the present proceeding must be dismissed. What follows are my reasons for coming to this decision.

   Relevant background

4. Like many proceedings of this type, the background is procedurally complex. For the present appeal it is sufficient to note only some aspects of the history of the proceeding.

5. On 5 August 2020 the respondent filed an application for a protection order pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (DFVPA). The respondent set out in the application her view that the appellant did not “have a disability, illness or impairment where support and/or special arrangements” were required. Detailed allegations of domestic violence were set out in the application which were supported by attached copies of text messages sent by the appellant. The application was served upon the appellant on 10 August 2020.

6. On 11 August 2020…