QPS v Manning

[2015] QMC 17

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

QPS v Manning [2015] QMC 17

PARTIES:

Queensland Police Service
(Prosecution)

v

John Frederick Manning
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00119532/14(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2015 and 8 July 2015

A/MAGISTRATE:

M Morrow

ORDER:

Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – General Matters – Criminal Liability and Capacity – Defence Matters – Ignorance and Mistake of Law – Ignorance and Mistake of Fact – Availability of Defence of Honest and Reasonable – mistaken advice

Whether defence of “officially induced error of law” available

SOLICITORS:

Snr. Const. H Glover appeared for the Queensland Police Service.

Defendant appeared in person not legally represented.

1. John Frederick Manning is charged with the offence that on the 14 June 2014 at Bundaberg in the Magistrates Court District of Bundaberg in the State of Queensland he did drive a motor vehicle namely a truck on a road namely Goodwood Road Bundaberg he not being at that time the holder of a driver licence authorising him to drive that vehicle on that road and at the time of committing the offence he was disqualified by a court from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

1. The Prosecution has called Sgt Barry Stevens, Senior Constable Timothy Lowth to give evidence on their behalf. The defendant gave evidence.

1. The Court also called Karl Oberhardt, a Court registry officer. In R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563, the Court outlined six key principles in relation to the Prosecution duty to call witness and the fifth principle is that “Save in the most exceptional circumstances, the trial judge should not himself call a person to give evidence.” I acknowledge it is not part of an adversarial system but in the interests of justice and fairness I called the witness who was available for Mr Manning. The procedure did not prejudice any party to these proceedings.

1. The burden of proof lies with the Prosecution to prove each and every element of the offence and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The Defendant has given evidence. He is entitled, also, in this particular case to insist that the Prosecution prove their case. The Prosecution always bears the burden of proving the guilt of the Defendant beyond reasonable fact, even to the extent where the Defendant gives evidence the onus is still on the Prosecution.

1. In relation to this particular matter, I have, during the course of the trial, had an opportunity of listening to and observing the demeanour of witnesses that have given evidence. This has assisted me in assessing credibility, although I accept that there is a need to keep the appearance and demeanour of a witness in perspective and the weight of that aspect in the light of other, more objective considerations.

Disqualified Driving – The Law

1. The Prosecution must prove that:

1.          The Defendant did drive – drive means the physical control over the movement and direction of a motor vehicle…