RDB v Queensland Police Service - [2024] QDC 103

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RDB v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 103

PARTIES:

RDB

(appellant)

v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

57/24

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Pine Rivers

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2024

JUDGES:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal granted.

2.   Vary the sentence imposed at the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on 15 December 2023 to delete the order that “a conviction was recorded” and substitute an order “that no conviction be recorded”.

3.   The sentence imposed on 15 December 2023 is otherwise affirmed.

4.   No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – where the offence was of a relatively minor nature – where the appellant was 22 years old and had a minor criminal history – whether there was likely to be an impact on the appellant’s economic wellbeing and/or chances of finding employment if a conviction was recorded – whether the learned magistrate erred in recording a conviction.

LEGISLATION:

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s.12

CASES:

Jenkins v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 289
R v ZB [2021] QCA 9
R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] QCA 467

COUNSEL:

D Funch for the appellant
K Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on 15 December 2023 to one charge of breach of bail condition. He was fined $900 and ordered to pay the fine within three months. In default, nine days imprisonment. A conviction was recorded.
Grounds
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(1) The learned magistrate erred in applying his discretion under s.12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA) in recording a conviction; and
(2) Whether, in all the circumstances, recording a conviction was manifestly excessive.
The law
I refer to and adopt my exposition of the relevant principles as set out in Jenkins v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 289 [7] - [9].
Circumstances of the offending
The appellant was 22 years old, and was placed on a bail undertaking on 14 January 2023. The bail undertaking contained various conditions, including a condition to report to the officer in charge, Gap Police Station, between 8 am and 4 pm every Monday from 16 January 2023, unless the appellant had written permission from the officer in charge, Gap Police Station, or the Director of Public Prosecutions to not report on a particular day.
On 17 March 2023, the condition was varied to require reporting at the Mango Hill Police Station on Mondays between 8 am and 4 pm.
On 18 November 2023, at 10.15 pm, the defendant was a passenger in a car intercepted by police at Racecourse Road, Hamilton. Police checks ascertained that he was wanted for questioning in relation to a bail breach for failing to report at the Mango…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read RDB v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QDC 103
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, RDB, sought to appeal against a conviction imposed by the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court for an offence of a relatively minor nature. The appellant, who was 22 years old at the time, had a minor criminal history. The central issue in the appeal was whether the magistrate erred in recording a conviction, particularly given the potential adverse impact on the appellant's economic wellbeing and employment prospects if a conviction was recorded.

The court examined the nature of the offence, the appellant's age, and his minor criminal history. The court considered whether the potential impact on the appellant's future was significant enough to warrant a different approach to sentencing. The court noted that the offence was relatively minor and that the appellant had shown remorse and had a low risk of reoffending. The court concluded that the magistrate had failed to adequately consider the potential long-term consequences of recording a conviction in this case.

In light of the above, the appeal was granted. The court varied the sentence to delete the order that a conviction was recorded and substituted an order that no conviction be recorded. The rest of the sentence was affirmed, and no order was made regarding costs. This decision underscores the importance of considering the broader impacts of a conviction, particularly in cases involving young offenders with minor criminal histories.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal granted.

2. Vary the sentence imposed at the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on 15 December 2023 to delete the order that “a conviction was recorded” and substitute an order “that no conviction be recorded”.

3. The sentence imposed on 15 December 2023 is otherwise affirmed.

4. No order as to 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.

CITATION:	RDB v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 103
PARTIES:	RDB (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	57/24
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Pine Rivers
DELIVERED ON:	31 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 May 2024
JUDGES:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal granted. 2. Vary the sentence imposed at the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on 15 December 2023 to delete the order that “a conviction was recorded” and substitute an order “that no conviction be recorded”. 3. The sentence imposed on 15 December 2023 is otherwise affirmed. 4. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – where the offence was of a relatively minor nature – where the appellant was 22 years old and had a minor criminal history – whether there was likely to be an impact on the appellant’s economic wellbeing and/or chances of finding employment if a conviction was recorded – whether the learned magistrate erred in recording a conviction.
LEGISLATION:	Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s.12
CASES:	Jenkins v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 289 R v ZB [2021] QCA 9 R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] QCA 467
COUNSEL:	D Funch for the appellant K Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent