QPS v Hoey - [2018] QMC 5

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

QPS v Hoey [2018] QMC 5

PARTIES:

QPS
(Applicant)

v

Tanya Louise Hoey
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG 00211590/17(3)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Summary Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Proserpine Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Proserpine

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2018

MAGISTRATE:

Young S

ORDER:

Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – Defendant convicted

CATCHWORDS:

Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – Defendant accelerated vehicle – persons standing next to and in vehicle – sudden or extraordinary emergency – domestic violence.

Legislation
Criminal Code s 328A
Criminal Code s 25

Domestic & Family Violence Protection Act

Cases
R v Sheldon [2014] QCA 328
R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446
R v Wilson [2009] 1 Qd R 476
Jones v Dunkel

COUNSEL:

Mr T. Collins of counsel for Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Mr B. Berger for Prosecution

Macrossan & Amiet for Defendant

Background

At 5:10pm on 10 April, 2017 Whitsunday Police were tasked with urgently attending the Boathouse Apartments, Airlie Beach to respond to a report that a pedestrian had been run over by a car and the car had left the scene. As they rushed from the station, police left the driver of that vehicle waiting behind at the station.

When police later returned, the Defendant, Ms Hoey, was waiting for them still.

Ms Hoey provided a statement to police later that evening about the events at the Boathouse Apartments that had occurred that afternoon (and ultimately that statement was tendered as Exhibit 7).

Ms Hoey was subsequently charged with a single offence of Dangerous operation of a vehicle under s 328A(1) of the Criminal Code, in that on the 10^th day of April, 2017 at Airlie Beach in the State of Queensland she dangerously operated a vehicle, namely a motor car, in a place, namely Airlie Beach. There were no circumstances of aggravation alleged in the charge.

Ms Hoey entered a plea of not guilty to this charge and a hearing was conducted in the Proserpine Magistrates Court on the 15^th February, 2018. Evidence was called by both the prosecution and defence. The Prosecution witnesses consisted of:

1. Daniel Burger, the former partner of the Defendant and father of the child Saskia (with Ms Hoey),

2. Mrs Hermyntje Hill, the mother of Mr Burger,

3. Ms Kelli Medford, the present partner of Mr Burger,

4. Ms Natasha Beverstock a receptionist at the Boathouse Apartments,

5. Constable Jenine Gardel and Constable Troy Lauder (both officers provided procedural rather than substantive evidence).

The Defence called Ms Hoey to give evidence on her own behalf and, of course, in so doing lost none of the presumption of innocence to which she is entitled.

I should say at the outset that I found the evidence of both Mr Burger and Ms Hoey as somewhat unreliable. I formed the view during their respective evidence-in-chief, which was confirmed by the conclusion of cross-examination, that both parties had a tendency to minimise their own conduct in the incident…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading QPS v Hoey

Details

AGLC: QPS v Hoey [2018] QMC 5
Case: [2018] QMC 5
Decision Date: 26 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The defendant had accelerated the vehicle towards a group of people, some standing next to the vehicle and others inside it. The court had to consider whether the defendant’s actions could be justified by an extraordinary emergency. The matter arose out of a situation involving domestic violence, where the defendant claimed to be acting in response to an immediate threat. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's actions constituted a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and if so, whether they could be justified under the circumstances presented.

The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the defendant's actions, while dangerous, could be justified as a response to an extraordinary emergency. The court had to consider the elements of the offence, including whether the defendant's operation of the vehicle constituted a danger to public safety and whether there was a reasonable excuse for the dangerous operation. The court also needed to assess the defence of an extraordinary emergency, which required the defendant to demonstrate that there was an immediate threat that necessitated a response, and that the response was proportionate to the threat faced.

The court found that the defendant's actions did constitute a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. While the defendant argued that they were responding to an extraordinary emergency due to domestic violence, the court held that the response was not proportionate to the threat perceived. The court concluded that there was no reasonable excuse for the defendant’s dangerous actions and thus found the defendant guilty of the charge. The court considered the circumstances and concluded that the defendant's actions were not justified under the circumstances presented.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The court imposed a sentence on the defendant, which was not specified in the text provided. The court's decision highlights the importance of proportionality in emergency responses and the strict scrutiny applied to claims of extraordinary emergency in justifying dangerous conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – Defendant convicted

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.

CITATION:	QPS v Hoey [2018] QMC 5
PARTIES:	QPS (Applicant) v Tanya Louise Hoey (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG 00211590/17(3)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Summary Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Proserpine Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	26 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Proserpine
HEARING DATE:	15 February 2018
MAGISTRATE:	Young S
ORDER:	Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – Defendant convicted
CATCHWORDS:	Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – Defendant accelerated vehicle – persons standing next to and in vehicle – sudden or extraordinary emergency – domestic violence. Legislation Criminal Code s 328A Criminal Code s 25 Domestic & Family Violence Protection Act Cases R v Sheldon [2014] QCA 328 R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446 R v Wilson [2009] 1 Qd R 476 Jones v Dunkel
COUNSEL:	Mr T. Collins of counsel for Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Mr B. Berger for Prosecution Macrossan & Amiet for Defendant