Rasmussen v Sutton - [2002] QSC 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rasmussen v Sutton & Anor [2002] QSC 157

PARTIES:

JASON PETER RASMUSSEN
(applicant)
v
J SUTTON
(first respondent)
AND
MR BARRETT, MAGISTRATE
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

11196 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2002

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1. That the application is dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW - NATURAL JUSTICE – where magistrate refused to set aside order disqualifying applicant from holding a driver licence – whether decision was in breach of natural justice

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW - NATURAL JUSTICE – where applicant pleaded guilty to charge of driving while disqualified – whether magistrate made error of fact

Evidence Act 1977, s 53(1)(a)
Judicial Review Act 1991, s, 43, s 548
Justices Act 1886, s 147A
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, s 188
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 78, s 150
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999, s 24

Boyd v Sandercock ex parte Sandercock [1990] 2 Qd R 26, applied
McMasters v Foley [2001] QDC 54, distinguished
Meissner v Queen (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132, applied
R v Broadbent [1964] VR 733 at 735, considered
R v Chiron (1998) 1 NSWLR 218, cited
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187, cited
R v Rimmer [1972] 1 WLR 268, considered
R v Williams ex parte Biggs [1989] 1 Qd R 594, considered
Smith v Corrective Services Commission NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134, considered
South Australia v Tanner (1988-1989) 166 CLR 161, cited
The Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr P. Godsall for the applicant

Mr R. Jones for the first respondent

Mr J.P. Kooremon for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the applicant
Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the first respondent
Crown Solicitor for the second respondent

CHESTERMAN J: The applicant obtained a driver’s licence in about July of 1997 when he was 17 years of age. It was cancelled on 17 January 1998 because by then he had accumulated 8 demerit points for twice exceeding speed limits, (once in a built-up area) by more than 30 kilometres per hour. Nine days later he again drove at excessive speed. On this occasion the Magistrate’s Court at Bundaberg disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence because of the fact that he had driven after his first licence had been cancelled. By June of 1999 he had obtained another licence but between then and January 2000 he had accumulated another 13 demerit points. On 21 March 2000 his driver’s licence was again cancelled. Despite this, on 17 June 2000 he was apprehended driving a motor vehicle. On 5 July 2000 he pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court at Bundaberg to a charge of:

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 Rasmussen v Sutton

Details

AGLC: Rasmussen v Sutton [2002] QSC 157
Case: [2002] QSC 157
Decision Date: 7 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Rasmussen sought judicial review of a decision by Sutton, a magistrate, who refused to set aside an order disqualifying Rasmussen from holding a driver licence. The applicant contended that the magistrate's decision breached the principles of natural justice by not allowing him to present his case adequately. The central legal issues were whether the magistrate’s refusal to set aside the order was lawful and if there was an error of fact in the magistrate's consideration of the applicant's guilty plea.

The court examined whether the magistrate's decision adhered to the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of fairness in administrative decision-making. It assessed whether Rasmussen had a sufficient opportunity to present his case and whether the magistrate made any factual errors in interpreting the applicant's guilty plea. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision was procedurally fair and did not involve any factual error. The court found that Rasmussen had the opportunity to argue his case and that the magistrate properly considered the circumstances of the guilty plea.

Given the findings, the court dismissed Rasmussen's application for judicial review. It held that the magistrate's decision was not in breach of natural justice and that there was no error of fact. Consequently, the court ordered that Rasmussen pay the costs of the application to the first respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application is dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Rasmussen v Sutton & Anor [2002] QSC 157
PARTIES:	JASON PETER RASMUSSEN (applicant) v J SUTTON (first respondent) AND MR BARRETT, MAGISTRATE (second respondent)
FILE NO:	11196 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 May 2002
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. That the application is dismissed. 2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW - NATURAL JUSTICE – where magistrate refused to set aside order disqualifying applicant from holding a driver licence – whether decision was in breach of natural justice ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW - NATURAL JUSTICE – where applicant pleaded guilty to charge of driving while disqualified – whether magistrate made error of fact Evidence Act 1977, s 53(1)(a) Judicial Review Act 1991, s, 43, s 548 Justices Act 1886, s 147A Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, s 188 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 78, s 150 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999, s 24 Boyd v Sandercock ex parte Sandercock [1990] 2 Qd R 26, applied McMasters v Foley [2001] QDC 54, distinguished Meissner v Queen (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132, applied R v Broadbent [1964] VR 733 at 735, considered R v Chiron (1998) 1 NSWLR 218, cited R v Murphy [1965] VR 187, cited R v Rimmer [1972] 1 WLR 268, considered R v Williams ex parte Biggs [1989] 1 Qd R 594, considered Smith v Corrective Services Commission NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134, considered South Australia v Tanner (1988-1989) 166 CLR 161, cited The Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, cited
COUNSEL:	Mr P. Godsall for the applicant Mr R. Jones for the first respondent Mr J.P. Kooremon for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the applicant Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the first respondent Crown Solicitor for the second respondent