Riordan v Grohl - [2000] QCA 487

[2000] QCA 487

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
DOUGLAS J

CA No 152 of 2000

SENIOR CONSTABLE RIORDAN

DAVID ERIC GROHL Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/11/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 31 January 2000 in the Magistrates Court at Southport to one count of driving under the influence of liquor under s.79 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.

He was fined $400, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three months and a conviction was recorded. He appealed under s.222 Justice Act 1886 to a District Court Judge at Southport from that part of the Magistrates order which recorded a conviction.

The learned District Court Judge dismissed that appeal with costs. This is an application for leave to appeal from that order under s.118 District Court Act 1967.

The applicant, a US citizen, is 31 years old and has no prior convictions. He is the lead guitarist and singer for the well known and internationally successful pop group Foo Fighters. He and his band have undertaken very significant charitable works estimated about $10 million. He had been performing at the Gold Coast earlier on the evening of the offence. He and a friend were sightseeing at about
10.54 p.m. on 23 January 2000; they were each driving mopeds, low-powered motor cycles.

In a random breath test he was found to have a blood alcohol level of .095 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The applicant's barrister told the Magistrate that as a US citizen he would have to indicate in his landing card whether he had been convicted of any criminal offence and that "a lot of serious consequences flow from that", apparently, because in some US states this offence is regarded as a felony. The applicant was used to drinking lighter US beer and was unaware of the Queensland laws as to drink driving; many US jurisdictions have a .08 or .1 level.

The applicant was concerned as to the effect a conviction would have on future engagements in the Middle East scheduled later in 2000. His counsel's submission was put no higher than that "with the blight of a conviction for this he well may be banned from a number of places where the band itself could perform".

His counsel urged the learned stipendiary Magistrate to exercise his discretion under s.12, Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 not to record a conviction and noted that many of those dealt with for minor drug offences had no convictions recorded against them.

The police prosecutor initially submitted to the Magistrate that there was authority that convictions must be recorded in relation to drink driving offences. The Magistrate was referred to the case of Hauser v. O'Shea, District Court Toowoomba, 11 March 1994, Appeal No 4 of 1993; a much more serious matter than this.

The learned Magistrate accepted he had a discretion as to whether or not to record a conviction. He mentioned all matters favourable to the applicant and…

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 Riordan v Grohl 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: [2000] QCA 487
Decision Date: 27/11/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Riordan v. Grohl, the applicant, David Eric Grohl, a US citizen and the lead guitarist and singer for the internationally successful pop group Foo Fighters, sought leave to appeal against the decision of a District Court Judge to dismiss his appeal against the recording of a conviction for driving under the influence of liquor. Grohl had been found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.095 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and despite his lack of prior convictions and significant charitable works, he was fined $400 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three months. The District Court Judge dismissed Grohl's appeal against the recording of a conviction, leading to this application for leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court Judge was correct in concluding that the Stipendiary Magistrate had not erred in exercising his discretion under section 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to record a conviction. The Court of Appeal considered the consequences of not recording a conviction, noting that while it prohibits entering the conviction into any records, it does not prevent disclosure if specific questions are asked. The Court also highlighted the importance of the truth being known by various entities, including potential employers, insurers, and government departments, including immigration.

The Court of Appeal held that the District Court Judge was correct in concluding that the Stipendiary Magistrate had not erred in exercising his discretion to record a conviction. The Court found that the material before the Stipendiary Magistrate did not provide unequivocal evidence of the potential consequences of a recorded conviction, and that the discretion could have been validly exercised either way. The Court further held that Grohl had not demonstrated any reason to justify the granting of leave to appeal in this case.

The order is that the application is dismissed.

Orders