Stampfli v Hance - [2014] QDC 176

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stampfli v Hance [2014] QDC 176

PARTIES:

CONSTABLE NATASHA STAMPFLI
(appellant)

v

BRIAN PAUL HANCE
(respondent)

FILE NO:

18/14

DIVISION:

Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against sentence and costs order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2014

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1. Appeal with respect to sentence dismissed.

2. Appeal with respect to costs order dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – Where respondent was convicted after a summary trial of one charge of serious assault – Where the respondent was acquitted of one charge of common assault – Where the learned magistrate found that the assault was unintentional – Whether the magistrate erred in imposing a nominal sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – COSTS - Where respondent was convicted after a summary trial of one charge of serious assault – Where the respondent was acquitted of one charge of common assault – Where the prosecution had rejected the respondent’s submission that the charges be discontinued – where the prosecution unnecessarily extended trial length – where no formal evidence of costs were provided to the learned magistrate – whether the magistrate erred in granting the respondent costs for the trial.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss. 158(1); 222(2)(b)

Justices Regulation 2004, Schedule 2, Part 2

CASES:

R v Dizo [2008] QCA 89

Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327

COUNSEL:

D Nardone for the appellant
E Mac Giolla Ri for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant
Wheldon & Associates, solicitors for the respondent

Introduction

The appellant, Natasha Stampfli (a Queensland police officer) appeals from the decision of the learned magistrate at Beenleigh on 28 February 2014, finding the respondent Brian Paul Hance, not guilty of common assault; and further appeals from the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate in respect of a second charge of serious assault, on which the respondent was sentenced to a three month good behaviour bond with a recognisance in the amount of $100. The appellant also appeals in respect of an award of $1,500 in costs made in favour of the respondent.

The first ground of appeal (in respect of the respondent’s acquittal on the common assault charge) was withdrawn by the appellant, given that the District Court in its appellate jurisdiction may only deal with a sentence, or an order for costs, in respect of an indictable offence dealt with summarily.[1]
[1]Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s. 222(2)(b).

Grounds of appeal

The appellant submits that the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate in respect of the serious assault charge was “manifestly inadequate”, and submits further that the learned magistrate erred in the award of costs to the respondent.

Background

The respondent appeared for trial before the learned magistrate at Beenleigh on 6 and 14 February 2014 in respect of a common assault on Sharon…

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 Stampfli v Hance

Details

AGLC: Stampfli v Hance [2014] QDC 176
Case: [2014] QDC 176
Decision Date: 25 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stampfli v Hance, the appellant, Stampfli, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Stampfli was found guilty of one charge of serious assault following a summary trial, while he was acquitted of another charge of common assault. The magistrate determined that the assault was unintentional and imposed a nominal sentence. Stampfli sought to appeal the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and also contested the costs awarded to him by the magistrate.

The central legal issues were whether the magistrate erred in the imposition of the nominal sentence and in granting Stampfli costs despite the prosecution's conduct. The court was required to assess if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and to determine if the magistrate's decision to award costs was justified. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the criteria for interfering with a sentence and the principles governing the award of costs in criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the magistrate's decision to impose a nominal sentence, considering the unintentional nature of the assault and the absence of aggravating factors. Regarding the costs, the Court held that the magistrate did not err in awarding costs to Stampfli, as the prosecution's conduct did not prevent the imposition of costs under the applicable legislation. The appeal against both the sentence and the costs order was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal with respect to sentence dismissed.

2. Appeal with respect to costs order 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:	Stampfli v Hance [2014] QDC 176
PARTIES:	CONSTABLE NATASHA STAMPFLI (appellant) v BRIAN PAUL HANCE (respondent)
FILE NO:	18/14
DIVISION:	Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against sentence and costs order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2014
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal with respect to sentence dismissed. 2. Appeal with respect to costs order dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – Where respondent was convicted after a summary trial of one charge of serious assault – Where the respondent was acquitted of one charge of common assault – Where the learned magistrate found that the assault was unintentional – Whether the magistrate erred in imposing a nominal sentence. CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – COSTS - Where respondent was convicted after a summary trial of one charge of serious assault – Where the respondent was acquitted of one charge of common assault – Where the prosecution had rejected the respondent’s submission that the charges be discontinued – where the prosecution unnecessarily extended trial length – where no formal evidence of costs were provided to the learned magistrate – whether the magistrate erred in granting the respondent costs for the trial.
LEGISLATION:	Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss. 158(1); 222(2)(b) Justices Regulation 2004, Schedule 2, Part 2
CASES:	R v Dizo [2008] QCA 89 Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327
COUNSEL:	D Nardone for the appellant E Mac Giolla Ri for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant Wheldon & Associates, solicitors for the respondent