Rodgers v Smith - [2005] QDC 428

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rodgers v Smith [2005] QDC 428

PARTIES:

WILLIAM JOHN RODGERS

Appellant

v

BRETT JOHN SMITH

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D1562/04; MAG–00230153/00(9); NANA–MAG–2178/00

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Nanango

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – Bias – previous unfavourable decision later superseded - trail by acting magistrate - well known to magistrate who disqualified himself – no bias shown

CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – fair trail - limits placed on cross-examination – no miscarriage of justice

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Criminal law – sentence – unjustified finding of primary fact – whether material to sentence – not set aside

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 – applied.
Re Finance Sector Union of Australia, ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 583 – cited.
GPJ Leisure Corp Ltd v Herdsman Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 – cited.
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 – applied.
Re Morling ex parte Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (No 2) (1986) 60 ALJR 526 – cited.
R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 – applied.
R v Cardona [1982] 2 VR 126 – applied.
R v Masters (1942) 26 NSWLR 450 – followed.
R v McLennan [1999] 2 Qd R 297 – cited.
R v Taylor and Clarke (1892) 18 VLR 497 – applied.
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 – applied.
Wakeley v R (1990) 64 ALJR 321 – cited.
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 – applied.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

M. Hungerford-Symes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

This is an appeal under s222 of the Justices Act against the decision of an acting magistrate in Nanango on 19 March 2004 when the appellant was convicted after a summary trial of a charge under the Weapons Act and fined $650. A conviction was recorded, he was allowed nine months to pay, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a weapons licence for three years. Numerous points were raised by the appellant, who was not legally represented, in the course of his argument or in written submissions.

The appeal is against conviction and sentence. So far as the appeal against conviction is concerned, however, it is doomed, because on the appellant’s own version of events he was guilty of the offence charged. The charge was possessing two category H weapons other than in accordance with the authority of a licence and without other lawful authority, justification or excuse. The appellant had a licence for the weapons at the relevant time (Exhibit 3), but the licence was subject to a condition that the licence authorised the appellant to have possession and use of category H weapons at an approved shooting range, and all weapons were to remain in secure storage unless otherwise authorised, justified or excused by…

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.

Continue reading Rodgers v Smith

Details

AGLC: Rodgers v Smith [2005] QDC 428
Case: [2005] QDC 428
Decision Date: 21 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodgers v Smith was brought before the court where the plaintiff, Rodgers, contested a decision made by Smith. Rodgers argued that Smith, an acting magistrate, was biased due to a previous unfavorable decision that had later been superseded. The primary concern was whether the magistrate's prior involvement would impact the fairness of the current trial.

The court had to determine if the magistrate's prior decision-making could be considered a form of bias and whether this constituted a breach of the principle of a fair trial. Additionally, the court examined whether the limitations placed on cross-examination during the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal also scrutinized whether an unjustified finding of a primary fact materially affected the sentence.

The court ruled that there was no evidence of bias on the part of the magistrate despite the previous unfavorable decision. The magistrate had disqualified himself from the case, which was deemed sufficient to address any potential bias. The court also found that the limitations on cross-examination did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the fundamental fairness of the trial was maintained. Lastly, the court determined that the unjustified finding of a primary fact did not materially impact the sentence, and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the decisions made during the original trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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:	Rodgers v Smith [2005] QDC 428
PARTIES:	WILLIAM JOHN RODGERS Appellant v BRETT JOHN SMITH Respondent
FILE NO/S:	D1562/04; MAG–00230153/00(9); NANA–MAG–2178/00
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Nanango
DELIVERED ON:	21 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 November 2005
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDGES – Bias – previous unfavourable decision later superseded - trail by acting magistrate - well known to magistrate who disqualified himself – no bias shown CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – fair trail - limits placed on cross-examination – no miscarriage of justice APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Criminal law – sentence – unjustified finding of primary fact – whether material to sentence – not set aside Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 – applied. Re Finance Sector Union of Australia, ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 583 – cited. GPJ Leisure Corp Ltd v Herdsman Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 – cited. M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 – applied. Re Morling ex parte Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (No 2) (1986) 60 ALJR 526 – cited. R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 – applied. R v Cardona [1982] 2 VR 126 – applied. R v Masters (1942) 26 NSWLR 450 – followed. R v McLennan [1999] 2 Qd R 297 – cited. R v Taylor and Clarke (1892) 18 VLR 497 – applied. Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 – applied. Wakeley v R (1990) 64 ALJR 321 – cited. Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 – applied.
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared in person M. Hungerford-Symes for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant was not represented Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent