RMP v Buley

[2021] QDC 228

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RMP v Buley [2021] QDC 228

PARTIES:

RMP

(appellant)

v

JAMIE ANTHONY PETER BULEY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3525 of 2020

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2021

JUDGE:

Loury QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   Set aside the sentence imposed.

3.   The appellant is convicted and fined $500.

4.   A conviction is not recorded.

5.   The appeal against the costs order is dismissed.

COUNSEL:

CK Copley for the appellant

R Swanwick for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

RB Lawyers for the appellant

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. On 27 November 2020 the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of contravention of a domestic violence order (aggravated) and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment wholly suspended for 18 months.  He was also ordered to pay costs in the amount of $1,362.68. 

1. The appellant appeals against the sentence imposed on the grounds that:

1.          The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive;

2.          The learned Magistrate took into consideration or gave too much weight to irrelevant matters;

3.          The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration or gave too little weight to relevant matters; and

4. In imposing a costs order pursuant to section 157 of the Justices Act 1886, the learned Magistrate:

(a)        Took into consideration or gave too much weight to irrelevant matters; and/or

(b)        Failed to take into consideration or gave too little weight to relevant matters. 

The circumstances of the offending

1. At 3.30 pm on 11 November 2019, the appellant picked up the aggrieved from an address and proceeded to drive her to her home.  In the car, the appellant and aggrieved were involved in a heated verbal argument which progressed to a “physical interaction”. 

1. A protection order had been made on 23 April 2019.  It contained the standard condition that the appellant be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against her, together with conditions that: prohibited him from approaching within 100 metres of her home or work or other places she frequented; prohibited him from contacting her by any means; and prohibited him from approaching within 100 metres of her person.   

1. A series of four black and white images said to depict injuries sustained by the aggrieved in the “physical interaction” were tendered without objection.  The images received from the Magistrates Court are of such poor quality that I cannot determine what injuries they are said to depict.  The prosecutor when questioned about the injuries ultimately said the injuries resulted from a “physical interaction” between the parties however he was not intending to particularise the mechanism/s by which they were sustained. 

1. The appellant’s counsel informed the court that the appellant collected the aggrieved after she had undergone a termination of a pregnancy. He had offered to take her to, and collect her from, the…