Reid v Cairns Traffic Police

[2008] QDC 59

[2008] QDC 59

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE BRADLEY

Appeal No 128 of 2007

ALEXANDER RONALD REID	Appellant
and
CAIRNS TRAFFIC POLICE	Respondent
CAIRNS ..DATE 08/02/2008

JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR: I will just say, Mr Reid, that whilst I

1

appreciate that you would have preferred to have been
represented professionally, it is not my belief that you have
been disadvantaged because you certainly have been able to
argue quite coherently this afternoon your case, and I do

understand what your case is. However, your argument	10
unfortunately really misapprehends the nature of this appeal and my powers under the Justice Act.
This matter was started when you were served with a complaint
and summons which alleged that on the 13th of November 2006 at	20
Cairns you were the rider of a bicycle and that you rode on Buchan Street and failed to wear an approved bicycle helmet that was securely fitted and fastened to your head. Now, that
summons was returnable in the Magistrates Court, Cairns on the
21st of March 2007. You did not appear and you have given an	30
explanation for that, but you did not appear in the
Magistrates Court and it was dealt with in your absence, ex
parte, under the provisions of the Justices Act. The
Magistrate fined you $75 and ordered that you pay costs of
$65.40, in default of payment to serve five days in prison.	40
Now, the Magistrates Court file reveals that you applied for a re-hearing pursuant to the Justices Act. That application was heard on the 30th of May 2007, but that application was struck out. Your appeal to this Court is, according to your notice	50

of appeal, against that original conviction and fine.
Your grounds of appeal and the attachment to your notice of 2 JUDGMENT 60

1

appeal which is a copy of a letter to Legal Aid that you sent
on the 8th of May 2007, really you have repeated in your
argument today and that is that, in your opinion - and I
accept there is some practical basis for your opinion - it is

in fact safer for people to wear sun hats or hats with brims	10
than it is to wear a bicycle helmet. However, the law is that
when riding a bicycle on a public road you do have to wear a
bicycle helmet. The fact that you might think that that law
is unjust or unfair or irrational is not a grounds of appeal.
It is the Members of Parliament, it is the Legislature that	20
makes the laws, not Judges, and if the laws are to change then it is the Legislature that has to change them.
You have not contested the essential facts of the particulars
of the offence alleged against you, apart from the fact that	30
the street was wrong. Even if that was the case, you do not contest the fact that you were riding a bicycle without wearing an approved bicycle helmet that was securely fitted and fastened to your head.
40
So, in those circumstances, you have not established any reason for the conviction to be set aside and the appeal is dismissed.

-----

50

3 JUDGMENT 60