Rosily, Gila Golda Applicant v RSPCA - [2022] QCA 102

[2022] QCA 102

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P

CA No 40 of 2022
DC No 1322 of 2021

ROSILY, Gila Golda Applicant

RSPCA Respondent

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 9 JUNE 2022

JUDGMENT

MULLINS P: Ms Rosily applies for leave to appeal the decision of the learned District Court judge dismissing her appeal from the orders made in the Magistrates Court and in which Ms Rosily was found guilty of nine charges against section 17 of the Animal Care and Protection Act2001 (Qld) and ordered to pay $6043.32 in costs and disbursements: Rosily v RSPCA [2022] QDC 32. Ms Rosily requires leave to appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Court pursuant to section 118, subsection 3 of the District Court of Queensland Act1967 (Qld). In the Magistrates Court, the hearing lasted three days. After the Magistrate found Ms Rosily to be guilty of the nine charges, she was sentenced to a good behaviour bond and no conviction was recorded. A prohibition order was made against her. Ms Rosily appealed on extensive grounds that were dealt with in a detailed way by the District Court judge on the re-hearing of the matter on the appeal, on the evidence that had been adduced in the Magistrates Court.

Ms Rosily’s application for leave to adduce additional evidence was also dismissed by the District Court judge. There is no right for a litigant to appeal from the exercise of the District Court of its appellate jurisdiction. This is for good reason as a litigant will have had a full hearing in the Magistrates Court followed by a re-hearing in the District Court. In this particular matter, Ms Rosily has a concern about subpoenas that were not issued to the witnesses she wished to call in the Magistrates Court. This was a matter, however, that was raised on appeal before the District Court judge and dealt with in the District Court in respect of Ms Rosily’s application to allow new evidence in that court. The District Court judge asked the court to issue seven subpoenas to various people that are identified in paragraph 19 of the District Court judgment. On the basis of the outline of the nature of the evidence that Ms Rosily proposed to obtain from those witnesses the District Court judge concluded (at [26]) that those witnesses were not relevant to the issues in the appeal. The District Court judge also found (at [26]) that, if she erred on this point, the evidence proposed from those witnesses was not likely to have led the Magistrate to return a different verdict.

The respondent’s submissions referred to the usual test that is applied on applications for leave in this type of matter that is set out in Williamson v Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 594; [2018] QCA 52 at [25]. Relevantly, leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court in its appellate jurisdiction will not be given lightly. It is usual for an…

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 Rosily, Gila Golda Applicant v RSPCA 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: [2022] QCA 102
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rosily v RSPCA, the applicant, Gila Golda Rosily, sought leave to appeal the decision of the District Court dismissing her appeal against a decision made by the Magistrates Court. The District Court upheld the Magistrates Court's findings that Rosily was guilty of nine charges under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld) and ordered her to pay $6043.32 in costs and disbursements. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Rosily should be granted leave to appeal the District Court's decision, which dismissed her appeal from the Magistrates Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal considered the legal principles applicable to leave to appeal applications from the District Court's appellate jurisdiction. It noted that such leave is not granted lightly, and an applicant must demonstrate a substantial injustice and a reasonable argument that an error has occurred. The Court considered the grounds of appeal presented by Rosily, which included the claim that she was not born in the UK as alleged by RSPCA, but rather was Israeli born with Australian residency. The Court found that even if there had been an error in the identification of Rosily's birthplace, it would not be a relevant matter for the purpose of pursuing the appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the additional evidence proposed by Rosily was not likely to have led the Magistrate to return a different verdict.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Rosily's application for leave to appeal should be refused. The Court found that there was no substantial injustice and no reasonable argument that an error had occurred. The Court further noted that Rosily's submissions did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised an important point of law or principle or a question of general or public importance. Consequently, the Court dismissed Rosily's application for leave to appeal and the order made was that the application for leave to appeal is refused.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed Rosily's application for leave to appeal the District Court's decision to dismiss her appeal from the Magistrates Court. The Court found that Rosily had not demonstrated a substantial injustice or a reasonable argument that an error had occurred. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal did not raise an important point of law or principle or a question of general or public importance. The Court's decision was that the application for leave to appeal should be refused.

Orders