R v Samson

Case [2011] QCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112

PARTIES:

SMITH, Mykel Anthony
(appellant/respondent)
v
ASH, Rachael
(respondent/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 213 of 2009
DC No 228 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 February 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Fraser JA concurring as to the orders made, Chesterman JA dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed with costs.

3.   The orders of the District Court are set aside.

4.   The appeal to the District Court is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN – where applicant pleaded guilty to a Complaint and Summons in the Magistrates Court and was fined $40 – where respondent sought orders for costs in addition to the fine being $81.10 for costs of court and $75 for professional fees – where Magistrate declined to award the $75 for professional fees – where respondent successfully appealed to the District Court – where s 222(2)(c) Justices Act 1886 (Qld) restricts appeals to the District Court where a defendant has pleaded guilty – whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal

PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS –WRONG EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where applicant pleaded guilty to a Complaint and Summons in the Magistrates Court and was fined $40 – where respondent sought orders for costs in addition to the fine being $81.10 for costs of court and $75 for professional fees – where Magistrate considered it would be have been more appropriate for respondent to have dealt with the matter under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld) – where Magistrate refused to award respondent Council costs being $75 professional fees – where respondent successfully appealed to District Court – whether the District Court judge erred in holding that the Magistrate wrongly exercised her discretion in refusing to award costs

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 651, s 651(4), s 652
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 19, s 72, s 147A, s 157, s 158, s 158A, s 158A(5), s 222(1), s 222(2)(a), s 222(2)(b), s 222(2)(c)
State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld), s 4(a), s 4(b), s 4(c), s 16, s 22, sch 2(a)(ii)
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 253
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 106(1)(a)(i)

ACI Operations P/L v Bawden [2002] QCA 286, cited
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, cited
Arnold Electrical & Data Installations P/L v Logan Area Group Apprenticeship/Traineeship SchemeLtd [2008] QCA 100, cited
Cameron v Nominal Defendant [2000] QCA…

Continue reading R v Samson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Samson [2010] QCA 112
Case
[2011] QCA 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Samson involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to a complaint and summons in the Magistrates Court and was fined $40. The respondent subsequently sought orders for costs in addition to the fine, amounting to $81.10 for court costs and $75 for professional fees. The Magistrate declined to award the $75 for professional fees, finding it would have been more appropriate for the respondent to have dealt with the matter under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld). The respondent appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Magistrate's decision. The appellant sought leave to appeal to a higher court, questioning the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear the appeal due to the restriction imposed by section 222(2)(c) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), which limits appeals to the District Court where a defendant has pleaded guilty. Additionally, the appellant argued that the District Court judge had erred in finding that the Magistrate had wrongly exercised her discretion in refusing to award costs.

The court had to determine whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the statutory restriction and whether the District Court judge was correct in concluding that the Magistrate had exercised her discretion incorrectly. The appellant contended that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the statutory restriction, which only allows appeals to the District Court in cases where a defendant has not pleaded guilty. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the District Court judge erred in finding that the Magistrate had wrongly exercised her discretion in declining to award the $75 in professional fees, as the Magistrate had considered it more appropriate for the respondent to have dealt with the matter under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld).

The court found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the statutory restriction, as the appellant had pleaded guilty. The court further held that the District Court judge had erred in finding that the Magistrate had wrongly exercised her discretion. The court reasoned that the Magistrate had considered the appropriate statutory framework for dealing with the matter and concluded that it would have been more appropriate for the respondent to have dealt with the matter under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld). Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court, and dismissed the appeal to the District Court with costs.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed with costs, the orders of the District Court were set aside, and the appeal to the District Court was dismissed with costs. This decision reinforces the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and proper exercise of discretion by the courts in handling appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed with costs.

3. The orders of the District Court are set aside.

4. The appeal to the District Court is dismissed with costs.

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.