QPS v CAE

[2024] QMC 17

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

QPS v CAE [2024] QMC 17

PARTIES:

Senior Constable RJ Firman (Complainant)

v

 CAE (Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

55392/ 24(2)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2024

MAGISTRATE:

A. H. Sinclair

ORDER:

THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY ON CHARGE 1.

CATCHWORDS:

Domestic Violence Order – Interpretation of Domestic Violence Order – meaning of ‘contact’

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (version in force from 18 March 2024) – Section 57, 58, 107A

SOLICITORS:

Sgt L. Manns for the Applicant

Mr. A. Korobacz, Solicitor, ATSILS for the Defendant

1. On 1 May 2024 the Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 offences. After hearing the facts, I rejected the plea in relation to the first charge. That charge involved a breach of a ‘contact’ condition of a Domestic Violence order. My view at the time was that the facts as accepted did not disclose a breach of the order and that I could not properly accept the plea.

1. The prosecution’s case is that an order prohibiting a Respondent from ‘contacting or attempting to contact’ an Aggrieved is breached by them simply being in physical proximity.

1. The defence now submitted that a breach requires communication and that none was proven on the facts.

1. The matter was listed on 8 August 2024 and proceeded on the agreed facts as set out in the QP9.

1. The prosecution provided:

1.          written submissions

2.          the Domestic Violence Order itself

3.          A bail undertaking

4.          Transcript in relation to the bail

5.          Transcript in relation to the Domestic Violence Order

The Facts

1. The Aggrieved and the Defendant/Respondent are related. The Defendant was charged with a serious criminal offence of violence towards the Aggrieved. She was bailed and a Domestic Violence Order made. Those matters were deal with some time ago.

1. At about 3am on 30 March 2024 police intercepted a car on Haly Street. The backseat passenger side occupant fled. He was on a return to prison warrant. The Aggrieved was sitting next to him in the middle. The Defendant was sitting next to her on drivers’ side of the back seat. The driver and a front passenger were also in the car.

1. Police discovered the existence of the Domestic Violence Order. The Defendant stated she was there because the Aggrieved was scared of the person who had run away. The Defendant said she had been walking home and ‘they came along’, that the ‘boy was terrorising them’, he was crying and on the run.

1. Those facts do not prove who spoke to the Respondent or that the Respondent ever spoke to the Aggrieved.

The Order

1. The order was made on 6 Feb 2020 before another Magistrate.

1. It contained the mandatory condition and one other. That condition reads:

(2) The Respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the Aggrieved, including being prohibited from making telephone calls or…