Savage v ESC - [2025] QMC 19

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Savage v ESC [2025] QMC 19

PARTIES:

SENIOR CONSTABLE SHAUN SAVAGE

(Applicant)

V

ESC

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00046308/24(7)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gympie

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Gympie

HEARING DATE:

4 July 2025

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate Hughes

ORDERS:

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON 4 JULY 2025:

1.    CHARGE IS DISMISSED.

2.    ENTER A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

3.    DEFENDANT IS DISCHARGED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – where Defendant charged with Drive motor vehicle without driver licence disqualified by Court Order – where Defendant did not dispute elements of offence – where elements of offence proven

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY – SUDDEN OR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY – whether extraordinary emergency – whether ordinary person possessing ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act other than Defendant did – where Defendant’s then-partner threatened to kill her dog – where Defendant is Aggrieved in Protection Order naming her then-partner as Respondent – where threat to kill animal is well-recognised act of coercive control – where threat to kill dog can constitute emergency as matter of law – where close proximity in time and space – where ongoing pattern of domestic violence – where Defendant’s act of driving with her dog assessed within holistic principles of domestic violence – where Defendant reacted to objectively based fear of imminent danger from her then-partner to her dog and ultimately to herself – where Defendant must act quickly and do the best she can – where Defendant was vulnerable woman in isolated rural area being confronted by partner threatening her animal companion – where not only direct threat to dog but also threat to Defendant’s mental and emotional wellbeing – where honest and reasonable belief to not alert police – where police resources limited – where consequence for Defendant is the same – where victims may not immediately report domestic violence – where this makes it reasonable for Defendant to consider other options to remove herself from imminent danger to a place of safety – where gender issues surrounding domestic violence – where home of Defendant’s girlfriend was nearest place of refuge – where reasonable to expect ordinary person in that situation to have acted in that way – where Prosecution did not discharge burden to prove that circumstances confronting Defendant did not amount to extraordinary emergency

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 25

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 78, s 123C, s 124, Schedule 1

Berbic v Stegler [2005] QDC 294

Dudley v Ballantyne [1998] WASCA 198

Lynch v Commissioner of Police [2022] QCA 166

R v Dimitropoulos [2020] QCA 75

R v Webb [1986] 2 QdR 446

Zuccala v R (1991) 14 MVR 466

SOLICITORS:

Senior Constable R Higham for the Complainant

Nightingale Law for the Defendant

What offence is the Defendant charged with?

The Defendant is charged with one count of

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 Savage v ESC

Details

AGLC: Savage v ESC [2025] QMC 19
Case: [2025] QMC 19
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in Savage v ESC was charged with driving a motor vehicle without a driver's licence, which had been disqualified by a court order. The defendant did not dispute the elements of the offence, which were proven. The defendant's defence hinged on the argument that she was responding to an extraordinary emergency, as her then-partner threatened to kill her dog, which was recognised as an act of coercive control. The court had to determine whether the circumstances constituted an extraordinary emergency and if the defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

The court assessed the defence of necessity or emergency, considering whether the defendant's reaction was reasonable and whether an ordinary person in the same situation could have been expected to act differently. The court acknowledged the pattern of domestic violence and the defendant's vulnerability in an isolated rural area. It found that the threat to her dog and her own mental and emotional wellbeing constituted a genuine emergency. The court also considered the limited police resources and the reasonable belief of the defendant not to alert the police. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove that the circumstances did not amount to an extraordinary emergency.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the charge and entered a verdict of acquittal. The defendant was discharged. The court recognised the complexities of domestic violence and the reasonable steps a victim might take to ensure their safety and that of their animal companion. This decision underscores the importance of considering the broader context of domestic violence when evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant's actions in emergency situations.

Orders

Orders of the court

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON 4 JULY 2025:

1. CHARGE IS DISMISSED.

2. ENTER A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

3. DEFENDANT IS DISCHARGED.

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:	Savage v ESC [2025] QMC 19
PARTIES:	SENIOR CONSTABLE SHAUN SAVAGE (Applicant) V ESC (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00046308/24(7)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Gympie
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	4 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Gympie
HEARING DATE:	4 July 2025
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate Hughes
ORDERS:	DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON 4 JULY 2025: 1. CHARGE IS DISMISSED. 2. ENTER A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL. 3. DEFENDANT IS DISCHARGED.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – where Defendant charged with Drive motor vehicle without driver licence disqualified by Court Order – where Defendant did not dispute elements of offence – where elements of offence proven CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY – SUDDEN OR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY – whether extraordinary emergency – whether ordinary person possessing ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act other than Defendant did – where Defendant’s then-partner threatened to kill her dog – where Defendant is Aggrieved in Protection Order naming her then-partner as Respondent – where threat to kill animal is well-recognised act of coercive control – where threat to kill dog can constitute emergency as matter of law – where close proximity in time and space – where ongoing pattern of domestic violence – where Defendant’s act of driving with her dog assessed within holistic principles of domestic violence – where Defendant reacted to objectively based fear of imminent danger from her then-partner to her dog and ultimately to herself – where Defendant must act quickly and do the best she can – where Defendant was vulnerable woman in isolated rural area being confronted by partner threatening her animal companion – where not only direct threat to dog but also threat to Defendant’s mental and emotional wellbeing – where honest and reasonable belief to not alert police – where police resources limited – where consequence for Defendant is the same – where victims may not immediately report domestic violence – where this makes it reasonable for Defendant to consider other options to remove herself from imminent danger to a place of safety – where gender issues surrounding domestic violence – where home of Defendant’s girlfriend was nearest place of refuge – where reasonable to expect ordinary person in that situation to have acted in that way – where Prosecution did not discharge burden to prove that circumstances confronting Defendant did not amount to extraordinary emergency
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 25 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 78, s 123C, s 124, Schedule 1 Berbic v Stegler [2005] QDC 294 Dudley v Ballantyne [1998] WASCA 198 Lynch v Commissioner of Police [2022] QCA 166 R v Dimitropoulos [2020] QCA 75 R v Webb [1986] 2 QdR 446 Zuccala v R (1991) 14 MVR 466
SOLICITORS:	Senior Constable R Higham for the Complainant Nightingale Law for the Defendant