Reid v Queensland Police Service

[2010] QDC 313

[2010] QDC 313

DISTRICT COURT

ALEXANDER RONALD REID	Appellant
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE	Respondent
..DATE 16/08/2010 JUDGMENT

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE HARRISON
Appeal No 85 of 2010

CAIRNS decision of a Magistrate in Cairns on the 31st of March 2010 when, after a hearing in which one witness gave evidence, the appellant was convicted of an offence of riding a bicycle whilst not wearing a helmet. He lodged an appeal against that decision and the respondent brought an application to have the appeal struck out for want of prosecution.

I have had regard to an affidavit of Simon Corbett-Jarvis filed on the 31st of May 2010. Ihave had regard to paragraph 3 of the affidavit which confirms that the appellant was served with a copy of the application to strike out the appeal on the 31st of May 2010.

When this matter came before me on the 16th of June 2010, I informed the appellant that the matter would be listed for hearing at 9.15 today. Further, I note that the Registrar wrote to him that same day, advising him that the matter would be heard before me today. The letter from the Registrar was forwarded to 23 Barry Street, Bungalow, Cairns, which is the address shown in the notice of appeal.

I confirm that I have read the transcript of the proceedings in the lower Court, and it is clear to me that there was no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The appellant was charged under the provisions of regulation 256 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009.

I have had regard to the conduct of the appellant on the hearing of this matter before the Magistrate, and I note that he was totally unco-operative and constantly interjected during the course of those proceedings. He did not enter a plea of guilty, and seemed to think that the Magistrate was unable to proceed with the matter because he, the appellant, was disabled. The Magistrate quite properly entered a plea of not guilty, and then evidence was given from the only witness, a Constable Collins. The Magistrate accepted that evidence, as he was entitled to, and that established that the appellant was riding the bicycle at the time in question without an approved bicycle helmet as required by the regulations. 2 JUDGMENT

There is an exception under regulation 256(4) whereby a person may obtain a doctor's certificate stating that they cannot wear a bicycle helmet for medical reasons, or because of the physical characteristic of the person, it would be unreasonable to require the person to wear a bicycle helmet. As the Magistrate quite properly noted, no such certificate was tendered before him, and he then proceeded quite correctly on the basis that he had no option but to convict.

Obviously the merit of the appeal is something that I can was very clearly told on the last occasion before me that the matter is listed, and having particular regard to the lack of merit in the appeal, I strike out the appeal because of his failure to prosecute the appeal. 3 JUDGMENT

consider when dealing with the application to have the appeal
struck out for a failure on the part of the appellant to
prosecute the appeal, and it seems to me that he was certainly
aware that this matter was listed for today, and it also seems
to me that he was familiar enough with the Court process to
make some attempt to notify the Court if, for any legitimate
reason, he was unable to appear before me today.

-----

4   JUDGMENT