Sparks v Hughes - [2005] QDC 228

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sparks v Hughes [2005] QDC 228
PARTIES: KENT DAVID SPARKS
Appellant
and
JUSTIN HUGHES
Respondent
FILE NO/S: D2784/2004
DIVISION: Appellate
PROCEEDING: Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Magistrates Court, Inala
DELIVERED ON: 28 July 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 18 July 2005
JUDGE: Alan Wilson, S.C. DCJ
ORDER: Appeal allowed; vary the sentence imposed upon the
Appellant at Inala Magistrates Court on 8 July 2004 by
directing that convictions not be recorded in respect of
the offences of:
(a) failing to supply a specimen of breath; and
(b) obstructing police

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SUMMARY
CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST ORDER THAT
CONVICTIONS BE RECORDED
Relevant considerations
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
ss 9, 12
CASES CONSIDERED
R v Bain, unreported (Court of Appeal, 14 March 1997,
452/1996)
R v Briese, ex parte Attorney-General (1998) 1 QR 487
R v Lennon, unreported (Court of Appeal, 4 March 1997,
568/1996)
R v NE (2004) 2 QR 328
R v ND (2004) 2 QR 307
R v Nudd [2004] QCA 154
R v TN [2005] QCA 160
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124
Wilmot v Saleri unreported (Queensland Court of Appeal, 18
April 1997, at 26/1997)
COUNSEL: Mr A. N. Skoien for the Appellant
Mr M. Hungerford-Symes for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: Ryan and Bosscher for the Appellant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the
Respondent

The Appellant, a male aged 43, was convicted before Inala Magistrates Court on 8 July 2004 on his own pleas of guilty of one offence of failing to supply a specimen of breath, and on of obstructing police. He was fined $900 on the first count, and $150 on the second, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers license for 10 months. He was allowed six months to pay but on his solicitor’s immediate application Fine Option orders were granted and the fines were converted to 105 hours community service. He appeals only against the recording of convictions.
The uncontested facts presented to the Magistrate were that at about 5:10pm on 10 February 2004 police from Acacia Ridge attended at the Appellant’s home “ … in relation to information about a possible drink driving offence”. They saw a vehicle parked in the garage of the home with the garage door in the upright position and the Defendant seated in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. When police approached the Defendant and attempted to have a conversation with him he refused to answer questions and became agitated and aggressive. They then had a conversation with his wife, who:
“… stated she’d seen the Defendant drive to this address in the vehicle, park the vehicle in the garage five minutes prior to police arrival. She stated that she’d walked up to the driver’s side of the vehicle, turned the ignition off and removed the keys from the ignition because she thought he was intoxicated.”
The Defendant was required to submit to a roadside breath test but continued to…

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 Sparks v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Sparks v Hughes [2005] QDC 228
Case: [2005] QDC 228
Decision Date: 28/07/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sparks v Hughes was heard in an appellate court where Sparks, the appellant, sought to challenge a summary conviction imposed by Hughes, the magistrate, at the Inala Magistrates Court on 8 July 2004. The central dispute in this case involved the imposition of convictions for certain offences by the magistrate, which Sparks contested on the grounds of procedural errors and the adequacy of the evidence presented. The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolved around the correctness of the magistrate's decision to record convictions and the procedural fairness of the summary conviction process.

The court was required to determine whether the magistrate had acted within their legal authority when imposing the convictions and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the magistrate had complied with procedural requirements and whether the imposition of the convictions was just and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in both the process and the outcome of the convictions, and that the convictions should not have been recorded.

In addressing these issues, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and proceedings of the lower court. The appellate court found that there were procedural irregularities in the manner in which the convictions were recorded. The court determined that these irregularities were significant enough to warrant the quashing of the convictions. The evidence presented was deemed to be insufficient to support the convictions as imposed, leading to the conclusion that the magistrate had overstepped their authority. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the magistrate was varied by directing that the convictions not be recorded. This decision underscored the importance of procedural integrity and the need for a fair and just process in the imposition of convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed; vary the sentence imposed upon the

Appellant at Inala Magistrates Court on 8 July 2004 by

directing that convictions not be recorded in respect of

the offences of:

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.

CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SUMMARY CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST ORDER THAT CONVICTIONS BE RECORDED Relevant considerations
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 ss 9, 12
CASES CONSIDERED R v Bain, unreported (Court of Appeal, 14 March 1997, 452/1996) R v Briese, ex parte Attorney-General (1998) 1 QR 487 R v Lennon, unreported (Court of Appeal, 4 March 1997, 568/1996) R v NE (2004) 2 QR 328 R v ND (2004) 2 QR 307 R v Nudd [2004] QCA 154 R v TN [2005] QCA 160 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 Wilmot v Saleri unreported (Queensland Court of Appeal, 18 April 1997, at 26/1997)
COUNSEL:	Mr A. N. Skoien for the Appellant Mr M. Hungerford-Symes for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan and Bosscher for the Appellant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

CITATION:	Sparks v Hughes [2005] QDC 228
PARTIES:	KENT DAVID SPARKS Appellant and JUSTIN HUGHES Respondent
FILE NO/S:	D2784/2004
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Inala
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2005
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson, S.C. DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed; vary the sentence imposed upon the Appellant at Inala Magistrates Court on 8 July 2004 by directing that convictions not be recorded in respect of the offences of: